HX

56
 of fye
devolution.
 PROGRAMME
OF THE

WORLD REVOLUTION

BY

N. BUCHARIN

cv
r y

(i LASGOW
PklXTED AXl>rUBLISHKI) HV THE SOCIALIST LABOUR TRESS
50 RK\FRK,\V S

1920
 C.'OPYBIGHT, 1920.

SOCIALIST LABOUR PBESS.

HX
$
B&S
 PUBLISHER'S PREFACE.

"
The author of the Programme of the World Revolution "
is Comrade Bucharin, who is one of the ablest exponents of

Socialism in the international revolutionary movement.

With the exception of a very small pamphlet, nothing of import-
ance has yet been published in English from Bucharin 's brilliant
pen. While Lenin is the dialectical champion of the revolu-
tionary theories of Communism in Russia, Bucharin may be
looked upon as the most popular expounder of those views.
This function of popularising the aims and objects of Socialism
is ably performed by Bucharin, due to his wonderful gift
of being able to interpret the most difficult social theories
in a manner which is as brilliant as it is clear and elementary.
We do* bt if the case for Socialism, and its
revolutionary tactics,
has ever been presented in such simple language as that used
by Bucharin in the present work.

"The Programme of the World Revolution" has been

printed and circulated in many languages. Millions of copies

of this famous work have been distributed among the workers

throughout Europe. And as the S.L. Press is the only printing

establishment in Britain which is devoted to the publication of
Socialist literature, we have very great pleasure in recommend-

ing Bucharin's volume to the wage-workers of this country.

While the capitalist -imperialists of the world are seeking to
smash Soviet Russia by adopting savage tactics which range
from corruption, through violence, on to murder our Russian
comrades, a? part of their offensive, content themselves with
assailing Capitalism by the publication of literature!

S.L. PRESS.
 Programme of the World
Revolution.

CHAPTER I.

Till:: 1JKK1N OF CAPITAL, THE WORKING CLASS,

AND THE POOKEK ELEMENTS OE THE
VILLAGE POPULATION.
In countries, except in Kussia, Capital is predominant.
all
Whatever State one takes, whether semi-despotic Prussia, or
Republican France, or so-called democratic America, every-
where power is wholly concentrated in the hands of big capital.
A small group of people, landowners, manufacturers and the
richest bankers, hold millions and hundreds of millions of town
workers and rural poor in slavery and bondage, compelling them
to toil, sweating them and throwing them on the street as soon
as they become useless and worn out and incapable of being a
source of further profit to Lord Capital.
This terrible power of the bankers and manufacturers over
millions of toilers is given to them by wealth. Why does a poor
man who is thrown on the streets have to starve to death?
Because lie possesses nothing but a pair of hands which he can
sell to the capitalist should the capitalist want them. How is
it that a rich banker or business man can do
'nothing, and yet
lead an easy life free of care, getting a solid income, and raking
in profits daily, hourly, and even by the minute? Because he
possesses not only a pair of hands, but also those means of pro-
duction without which work is impossible nowadays: factories,
land, machines^ railroads, mines, ships and steamers, and all
kinds of apparatus and itist rmni-nts. All over the world, except
in pivscnl day llussia, this wealth accumulated by man belongs

only to capitalists and landowners who have also become capi-

talists. And
it is no wonder that in such a state of affairs a

group men, having in their hands all that is indispensable,

of
the most necessary things, dominate the rest who possess
nothing. Let us take the instance of a poor man from the
country coming to town to seek work. Who does he go to ? To
the proprietor, the man who owns a factory or works. And this
same proprietor becomes the complete master of the man's life.
If his, the master's loyal servants, directors and bookkeepers,
have calculated that it is possible to squeeze more profits out of
"
fresh workers than out of the old ones, then he gives a job."
"
If not, he tells him to pass along." At the factory the capi-
talist is monarch of all he surveys. He is obeyed by all, and his
directions are implicitly carried out. The factory is extended
or reduced at his will. At his command, through foremen and
managers, workmen are employed or dismissed. He decides
how long they are to work and what pay they are to get. And
all this happens because the factory is his factory, the works,
his works; they belong to him, are his private property. It is
this right of private property over the means of production that
is the cause of the terrible power which is in the hands of capital.
The same thing holds good with regard to land. Take the
freest and the most democratic country the United States.
Thousands of workers cultivate land that does not belong to
them, land owned by landowning capitalists. Here everything is
organised on the plan of a large factory : there are tens and
hundreds of electric ploughs, reaping machines, reaping and
sheaf-binding machines, at which hired slaves toil from dawn
till night. And just as at the factory, they work not for them-
selves, but for a master. That is because land itself as well as
the seeds and machines, in a word, everything, except the work-
Ing hands, is the private property of the capitalist master. He
is autocrat here. He commands and conducts the business in
such a way as to convert the very sweat and blood into shining
9 yellow metal. The workmen, grumbling sometimes, obey, and
go on making money for the master because he possesses every-
thing, whilst the worker, the poor agricultural labourer,
possesses nothing.
But sometimes it so happens that the landowner does not
hire labourers, hut lets his land on lease. Here in liussia, for
the p<><r peasantry, holding small allotments hardly
instance-,
enough to pasture a hen, were obliged to rent land from the
landowners. They cultivated it with their own horses, ploughs
and harrows. Hut oven here they were mercilessly tleeced. The
greater the peasant 's 'need for land, the greater was the rent
charged hy the landowners, thus holding the pour peasant in
real bondage. \\'hai enahled him to do that The fact that the
'.'

land was his, the landowner's land; the fact that the land con-
stituted the private property of the landowning class.
Capitalist society is divided into two classes: those who
work a great deal and feed scantily, and those who work little or
not at all, hut eat well and plentifully. That is not at all in
"
accordance with the Scriptures, where it says: Ho that does
not work', neither shall he oat." This circumstance, however,
does not prevent the priests of all faiths and tongues from
lauding the capitalist order; for these priests everywhere (except
in the Soviet Republic) are maintained by increment derived
from private or church property.
Another question now arises. How is it possible for a group
of parasites to retain private ownership over the means of labour,
so indispensable to all? How has it come about that private
ownership hy the idle classes is maintained to the present day?
Whore does the reason lie?
The reason lios in the 'perfect organisation of the enemies
of the labouring class. To-day there does not exist a single
capitalist country where the capitalists act individually. On
the contrary, each one of them is infallibly a member of some
economic organisation. And it is these economic unions that
hold everything in their hands, having tens of thousands of
faithful agents to serve them, not out of fear, but as a matter of
conscience. The entire economic life of every capitalist country
is at the complete disposal of special economic organisations :

syndicates, trusts, and unions of many banking concerns. These

combines own and direct everything.
The most important industrial and financial combine is the
Bourgeois State. This combine holds in its hands the reins of
government and power. Here everything is weighed and mea-
sured, everything is premeditated and arranged in such a
manner, as to crush instantly any attempt at rebellion on the
part of the working class against the domination of capital. The
State lias at its disposal, forces (such as spies, police, judges,
executioners, and trained soldiers, \\lio have become soulless
machines), as well as mental influences which gradually pervert
the workers and poorer elements of society, imbuing them with
fallacious ido-is. For this purpose the bourgeois State utilises
 10

schools and the Church, aided by the

capitalist press. It is a
known fact that pig-breeders can breed such stock .as are in-
capable of moving owing to the vast accumulation of fat; but
such pigs are extremely suitable for slaughter.
They are bred
artificially on special fattening food. The bourgeoisie deals
with the working class in exactly the same way. It is true it
gives them little enough substantial food not enough to get fat
on. But day by day it offers to the workers a
specially-prepared
mental food which fattens their brains and makes them
incap-
able of thought. The bourgeoisie wants to turn the working
class into a herd of swine, docile and fit for
slaughter, not
capable of thinking and ever subservient. This is the reason
why, with the help of schools and the Church, the bourgeoisie
tries to instil into the minds of children the idea that it is neces-
sary to obey the Authorities, as they hold their power from
heaven (and the Bolsheviks, instead of prayers, have drawn on
themselves the curses of the Church, because they have refused
to grant any State subsidies to these cassocked This
frauds).
is also the reason why the bourgeoisie is so anxious to circulate
its lying press far and wide.
The powerful organisation of the bourgeois class enables
them to retain private property. The rich are few in number,
but they are surrounded by a large number of faithful, devoted
and handsomely-paid servants ministers, directors of works,
:

directors of banks, and so on these latter are again surrounded

;

by a still greater number of retainers who get paid less, but who
are entirely dependent on them, and are educated along the
same lines. They are themselves on the look-out for such posts,
should they be lucky enough to attain them. These again are
followed by minor officials, agents of capital, etc., etc. It is
"
just as the Russian nursery tale has it Grandad holds on to
:

the turnip, grandma on to grandad, grandchild on to grandma,"

and so on in short they follow one another in an interminable
;

chain united by the general organisation of the bourgeois State

ahd other industrial combines. These organisations cover all
countries with a net out of which the working class struggles in
vain to get free. Every capitalist State is in reality one vast
economic union. The workers toil the masters enjoy them-
selves. The workers carry out orders the masters lord it over
them. The workers are deceived the masters deceive them.
Such is the state of things called capitalistic, which the capi-
talists C\T}<\their servants the intellectual clnssos, rnf-n-
priests,
 11

sheviks, socialist revolutionaries, and the rest of that fraternity,

are inviting the workers and peasants to obey.

CHAPTER II.
PLUNDERING WAES. THE OPPRESSION OF THE
WORKING CLASSES, AND THE BEGINNING
OF THE FALL OF CAPITALISM.
In ovory capitalist country small capital has practically
vanished; of late it has been eaten up by the big sharks of capi-
talism. At first, a struggle went on between the individual
capitalists for customers; at the present time when there are
only a few of them left (as the small fry is absolutely ruined),
the remaining ones have united, organised, and have it their
own \vav in their country, just as in the olden times the barons
had full power over their domains a few American bankers own
;

the whole af America, just as formerly a single capitalist owned

his factory. A few French usurers have subjugated the whole
French people five of the biggest banks hold the fate of the
;

German people in their hands. The same thing happens in other

capitalist countries. It may therefore be said that the present
<

"
capitalist States, or as they are called, Fatherlands," have
become huge factories owned by an industrial combine, just as
formerly a single capitalist owned his particular factory.
,
It is not surprising that such combines, unions of various
1
capitalist countries, are now carrying on among themselves the
I same sort of struggle which was formerly carried on between
I individual capitalists the English capitalist State is fighting the
;

German capitalist State, just as formerly in England or in

Germany respectively one individual manufacturer was struggl-
ing against another. Only now the State is a thousand times
bigger, and the struggle for the increase of profits is being waged
by means of human life and human blood.
In this struggle, which has spread over the whole globe, the
first to perish were small weak countries. At the beginning it
is always the small colonial people that perish. Weak, un-
ciyilised tribes are dispossessed of their
lands by the great
plundering States. A struggle ensues for the division of the
" "
ivmnining free lands, i.e., lands not yet looted by the
 12
" "
civilised States. Then begins a struggle for the re-division
of that which has already been looted It is quite evident that
the struggle for the re-division of the world must be bloody and
furious as no war before it. It is conducted by monstrous giants,
by the biggest States in the world, armed with perfected death-
dealing machines.
The world war which broke out in the summer of 1914 was
the war for the final re-division of the world between the
first
" "
monsters of civilised robbery. It has drawn into its whirl-
pool four of the chief rival giants England, Germany, America
:

and Japan. And

the struggle is being carried on to decide which
of these plundering unions will put the world under the domi-
nation of its bloody iron heel.
This war has everywhere vastly deteriorated the position of
the working class, which was bad enough as it was. Terrible
calamities have fallen on the workers millions of the best men
:

were simply mown down on the battlefields starvation was the

;

fate of others. Those who dare to protest are menaced with

severest punishments. Prisons are filled to overflowing gen- ;

darmes with machine guns are held ready against the working
classes. The rights of the workers have vanished even in the
' ' ' '

most free countries the workers are even forbidden to

:

strike strikes are looked upon in the same light as treason. The
;

Labour and Socialist Press is stifled. The best workers, the

most loyal fighters for the revolution, are compelled to hide and
build up their organisations secretly, just as we used to do in
the time of the Czar, furtively hiding from crowds of spies and
police. No wonder that all these consequences of the war have
made the workers not only groan, but rise against their
oppressors.
But now the bourgeois States which are responsible for the
great slaughter are in their turn beginning to decay at the root
"
and fall. The bourgeois States have stuck," so to speak,
They have stuck in the bloody swamp they have created in their
hunt after profit, and there is no way out. To go back, to return
empty-handed is impossible after such great losses in money,
goods and blood. To go on, encountering new terrible risks, is
also practically impossible. The policy of the war has led thorn
into a blind alley from which there is no exit. And that is why
the war is still continuing without either coming to an end or
achieving any definite result. For the same reason the decaying
to totter, and will sooner or !;
capitalist order is beginning
 13

have to make way for a new order of

things, under which the
imbecility of the world war for the sake of gain will have become
impossible.
The longer the war lasts the poorer the combatant coum
are becoming. The flower of the working class has either
perished or is lying eaten alive by lice in the trenches, busily at
work in the cause of destruction. Everything lias been demo-
lisbed in the course of the war even brass door handles have
:

been confiscated for war requirements. Objects of primary

necessity are lacking because the war, like the insatiable locust,
has devoured everything. There is no one to manufacture useful
articles any longer; what there is, is
being gradually used up.
For nearly four years factories that previously turned out useful
things are manufacturing shells and shrapnel instead. And
now, without men, without producing what is indispensable, all
the countries have reached a state of decline where people are
beginning to howl like wolves with cold, hunger, poverty, want
and oppression.
In German villages, where formerly electricity was used,
they now burn dried wood chips for lack of coals. Life is coming
to a standstill with the general growth of
poverty of the people.
In such well-kept towns as Berlin and Vienna, the streets are
not traversable at night because of the robberies that take place.
The press is wailing over the insufficiency of police. They refuse
to see that the growth of crime is the consequence of the growth
of pauperism, despair and exasperation. Cripples returning
from the front find sheer starvation at home; the number of
hungry *md homeless, notwithstanding the number of various
relief organisations, is constantly growing, because there is
nothing to eat, and all the w hile the war proceeds, demanding
r

new sacrifices.
The harder the position of the warring States, the more
friction, quarrels and misunderstandings arise -between the
different sections of the bourgeoisie, who formerly went hand
in hand for the sake of their mutual aims. In Austria-Hungary,
Bohemians, "Ukrainians., Germans, Poles and others are fighting
each other. In Germany, with the conquest of new provinces,
tlie same bourgeoisie
(Esthonian, Lettish, 'Ukrainian, Polish)
which welcomed Ihr (lermun troops, are now quarrelling furi-
ously with their liberators. In England, the English bourgeoisie
is in mortal conflict with the enslaved Irish bourgeoisie. And
in the midst of this tumult and general disorganisation is heard
 14

the voice of the labouring class, before which history has laic
the problem of putting an end to war and of overthrowing th(
yoke o! capitalism. Thus approaches the hour of the decay oJ
capitalism and the communist revolution of the working class.
The first stone was laid by the Eussian October Ee volution.
The reason why capitalism in Eussia became disorganised before
it did in any other country, was that the burden of the world
war was heaviest for the young capitalist State of our country.
We had not the monstrous organisation of the bourgeoisie which
they have in England, Germany or America; and our bourgeoisie
could not therefore cope with the demands laid on it by the war.
Nor could they withstand the mighty onset of the Eussian
labouring class and of the poor elements of the peasantry who,
in the October days, knocked the bourgeoisie out of their seats
and put at the head of the Governrnentthe party of the working
class the Communist Bolsheviks.
Sooner or later the same fate will overtake the bourgeoisie
of Western Europe, where the working class is joining more and
more the ranks of the communists. Everywhere, organisations
" "
of native bolsheviks are growing; in Austria and America,
in Germany and in Norway, in France and in Italy. The pro-
gramme of the communist party is becoming the programme of
the universal proletarian revolution.

CHAPTER III.
GENEEAL SHAEING, OE CO-OPEEATIVE
COMMUNIST PEODUCTION.
We already know that the root of the evil of all plundering
wars, of oppression of the working classes and of all the atrocities
of capitalism, is that the world has been enslaved by a few State
organised capitalist bands, w ho own all the wealth of the earth
r

as their private property. The capitalist ownership of the means

of production this is the reason of reasons which explains the
barbarity of the present order of things. To deprive the rich of
their power by depriving them of their wealth, by force, that
is the paramount duty of the
working class, of the Labour Party,
ilie party of c.nTiimimists.
Some think that, after depriving the rich of their posses-
sions, these should be religiously, justly and equally divided
 15

between e\er\body, and thru all will be well. K\ the\

say, would have just as much as everyone rise; all would be
equal, and lived I'mni inequality, oppression aixl exploitation.
'Thanks to tills equal share-out, general division and allotment
of all the riches amongst the poor, everx body will look alter him
self, \vill o\vn all things convenient for his use, and the domina
lion of man over man will vanish.
.Hut this is not the point of view of the Communist Party.
The Communist Party considers that such equal sharing would
lead to nothing good, and to no other result than confusion and
a return to the old order.
Firstly, there are quite a number of things which are impos-
sible to divide. How, for instance, would you divide the rail-
wax If one man gets the rails, another the steel plate, a third
'.'

one of the screws, and a fourth begins smashing up the carriages

to light his stove, a fifth breaks a mirror, to have a piece of glass
for shaving purposes, and so on it is plain that this kind of

division would not be fair at all, and would only lead to an

idiotic plundering and destruction of useful things. It is just as

impossible to divide a machine. For, if one takes a, pinion,

another a lever, and the rest, other parts, the machine will cease
to be a machine, and the whole thing will go to ruin. And the
same thing holds good with regard to all complicated machinery,
which is so important as a means of further production. We
have only to think of telegraph and telephone apparatus, and the
apparatus at chemical works, etc. It is evident that only an
unintelligent man or a direct enemy of the working class would
advise this kind of sharing.
This, however, is not the only reason why such a sharing is
harmful. Let us suppose that by some kind of miracle, a more
or less equal division was attained of everything taken from the
rich; eveir that would not lead to any desirable result in the
end. What is the meaning of a division? It means that instead
of a few large owners there would spring up a large number of
small ones. It means not the abolition of private ownership, but
its dispersion over a larger area. In the place of large ownership
there would arise ownership on a small scale. Hut such a period
we have already had in the past. We know very well that capi-
talism and largo capitalists have developed out of lh- compe-
tition between one small owner and another. If we bn-d a

number of small owners as a result of our division, we should

get the following result part of them (and quite a considerable
:
 16

part) would, on the very next day, get rid of their share on so in P.
market or other (say the Soucharev Market in Moscow), and
their property would thus fall into the hands of wealthier
owners between the remaining ones a struggle would ensue for
;

the buyers, and in this struggle, too, the wealthier ones would
soon get the upper hand of the less well-to-do. The latter would
soon be ruined and turn into proletarians, and their
lucky rivals
would amass fortunes, employing men to work for them, and
thus be gradually transformed into first-rate capitalists. And
so we should, in a very short time, return to the same order
which we have just destroyed, and find ourselves once again
before the old problem of capitalist exploitation.
Dividing up into small property-holders is not the ideal of
the worker or the agricultural labourer. It is rather the dream
of the small shopkeeper oppressed by the big one, who wants
to become a large shopkeeper himself. How to become a
boss,' how to get hold of as much as possible and retain it in
his greedy clutch that is what the shopkeeper is aiming at.
To think of others and consider what this may result in is not
his affair so long as he gets an extra sixpence clinking in his
pocket. He is not to be frightened by a possible return to capi-
talism, for he is cherishing a faint hope that he himself, John
Smith, may become a capitalist. And that would not be so bad
for him.
No there is an entirely different road along which the work-
;

ing class should go, and is going. The working class is interested
in such a reconstruction of society as would make return to
capitalism impossible. Sharing of wealth would mean driving
capitalism out of the front door only to see it return by the back
door. The only way out of this dilemma is a co-operative labour
(communist) system.
In a communist order, all the wealth belongs not to indi-
viduals or classes, but to society as a whole, which become
it were, one great labour association; no one man is master over

it. All are equal comrades. There are no classes; capitalists

do 'not employ labour, nor do workers sell their labour to
employers. Tin-' work is carried out jointly, according to
a pre-

arranged labour plan. A central bureau of statistics calculate:-

lio\v much it is iv<juiivd to nianiit'acfiire in a year: such and
such a number of hoots, trousers, sausages, blacking, wheat,
clotli, and so on. It will also calculate that for this purpose
such and such a 'number of men must work on the fields and in
 the sausage work respectively, and such and Midi a number in
tin large '<>nmiiinal tailoring workshops, etc., and working
1

hands will be distributed accordingly.

The wliol- of production is conducted mi a strictU calcu-
lated and adjusted plan, on the basis of an exact estimate <,f
all the machines, apparatus, all raw material, and all tin- labour

power in the community. There is also an exact account kept

of the annual requirements of the community. Tin- manu-
factured product is stored in a communal warehouse, fruin
whence it is distributed amongst the workers. All work is
carried out only in the largest works and on the best niaehines,
thereby saving labour. The management of production is con-
ducted along the most economical lines: all unnecessary
.

expenditure is avoided, owing to work being carried out on one

general plan of production. We do not have here the kind of
order that allows one kind of management in one place and
another kind of management in another; or that one factory, for
example, should not know how things are done at another
factory, Here, on the contrary, the whole world is weighed and
accounted for. Cotton is only grown where the soil is most
suitable. The production of coal is concentrated in the richest
mines iron foundries are built in the neighbourhood of coal and
;

in parts where the soil is fit for wheat, it will not be

employed for building monstrous city edifices on, but will be
use,] for sowing wheat. Everything, in short, is arranged in
such a manner that each kind of production should be carried
out in a place most su table for it, where work could be done
most successfully, where things could be obtained easiest, where
human labour would be most productive. All this can be
attained only by working to a single plan and by organising the
whole community into one vast labour commune.
People in this communistic order do not benefit at one
another's expense. There are no rich here, no parvenus, no
bosses and no bottom dogs society is not divided into classes of
;

which one rules over the other. And there being no classes
means that there are not two sorts of people (poor and rich),
gnashing their teeth against one another, the oppressor against
the oppressed, and vice versa. For this same reason we have
no such organisation as the State, because there is no domi-
nating class requiting a special organisation to keep their class
; opponents under their heel. There is no Government to rule
nien. and there is no power of one man over another.
:

There is
 18

administration of things only, management of machines; there

is the power of human
society over Nature. Mankind is not
divided up into hostile camps it is united
;
by common labour
and by a common struggle against the elements. The
political
barriers that divide nations are done
away with. Separate
fatherlands are abolished. The whole of humanity, without dis-
tinction of nationality, is bound together in. all its
parts and
organised into one united whole. All peoples form one great
united labour association.

CHAPTER IV.
AX ANARCHIST OR A COMMUNIST ORDER.
There are people who call themselves Anarchists, that is to
say, adherents to an order of things where there is no Govern-
ment. They affirm that the Bolshevik-Communists are on the
wrong path, because they wish to preserve order, aoid that any
kind of power or authority, and any kind of state, means
oppression and violence. We have seen that such an opinion of
communism is not right. A communist order of life is an order
in which there are neither workers nor capitalists, nor any kind
of State. The difference between an anarchist and a communist
order is not in the fact that there is a State in one and none in
the other. No there is no State in either of them. The real
;

difference is in the following:

Anarchists think that human life will be better and freer
when they sub-divide all production into small labour-commune
organisations. A group or association, say, of ten men is formed
who have united by their own free will. Very well. These ten
men begin to work on their ow n account and at their own risk.
r

In another place there has arisen a similar association in a third

;

another. In time all these associations enter into negotiations

and agreements with one another concerning the things which
are lacking in each respective union.
" Gradually
" they come to
an understanding, and free contracts or agreements are
drawn up.
And now all production is carried on in these small com-
munes. Every man is free at any time to withdraw from the
commune, and each commune is free to withdraw from the
voluntary union (federation) of these small communes (labour
 10

iations).Do anarchists reason rightly'. Any worker

1

acquainted with tin- present sxstem of factory machine pro-

duction will see that this is not right. Let us explain why.
The future order is meant to save the working class from
two evils. l'ii ilu first place from the subjection of man b\ man,
1

from exploitation from the evil of one man oppressing another.

This is attained by casting off the yoke of capital and depriving
the capitalists of all their wealth. Hut there is \rt another
problem, that of shaking off the voke of Nature, of mastering
Nature, of organising production in the best, most perfect way.
Only then will it be possible for each man to spend but a little
time in the manufacture of food products, boots, clothes, houses,
etc.. and to spend the rest of his time for developing his mind,
for studying science, tor art, for all that which makes human
lift' beautiful.Prehistoric man lived in groups in which all were
equal. P>ut thev led a brutal existence, because they did not

subject Nature to themselves, but allowed Nature entirely t

subject them. Although witli the capitalist production on a
large scale humanity lias learned to control Nature, the working
class still live like beasts of burden, because the capitalist holds
them in his clutches, owing to the existence of economic in-
equality. What Follows? That economic equality should be
united with production on a large scale. It is 'not enough to do
awav with capitalists. It is
indispensable that production
should be organised, as we have already said, on a large- scale
Ali small, enterprises must disappear.
ineflicie'iit The whole
work must be concentrated in the largest factories, works and
estates. And not in such a way that Tom should not know
what 'John is doing, 'nor John know what Tom is doing; this

kind of management is all wrong. What we want is a united

plan of work. The more localities such plan embraces the
a.

better. The world must ultimately become one labour enter-

prise, where'the whole of humanity, in accordance with a strictly
worked out, estimated and measured plan, would work for its
own needs, on the best machines, at the biggest works, without
either employers or capitalists. In order to advance production,
we must on no account sub-divide the big production which
capitalism has left us as a heritage. It should, on the contrary,
be still more widened. The wider and larger the general plan,
the bigger the scale on which production will be organised, the
more will it be guided by the estimates and accounts of the
statistical centres. In other words, the more centralised in-
 20

dustry will be, the better for then the less labour will fall to
:

the share of each individual, the freer will each man be, the
greater the scope for mental development in human society.
But the future state of society propagated by the anarchists
is just the opposite of this. Instead of enlarging, centralising or
regulating production, it sub-divides it, and consequently
weakens the domination of man over Nature. There is no
general plan, -no large organisation. Under an anarchist order
it will be even
impossible to utilise large machines to the fullest
extent, to reconstruct railroads, according to a general plan, to
undertake irrigation on a big scale. Let us give an example.
A great deal is being spoken of substituting steam plant by
electricity, and of utilising waterfalls, etc., for obtaining electric
motor power. In order to distribute correctly the electrical
energy obtained, it is of course necessary to estimate, weigh
and measure where and how much of this energy is to be
directed, so as to derive the greatest possible advantage there-
from. What does that mean, and how is it to be made possible ?
It is only possible when production is organised on a large scale,
when it is concentrated in one or two great centres of manage-
ment and control. And, on the other hand, it is impossible
under an anarchist order of small, disseminated communes but
loosely held together. In this way we can. see that, as a matter
of fact, production cannot be properly organised in an anarchist
State. This in its turn results in a long working day, i.e.,
dependence to a great extent on Nature. An anarchist order
would only serve as a bridle retarding the progress of humanity.
That is why we, communists, are fighting against the teaching
spread by the anarchists.
Now it is plain why anarchist propaganda leads to a sharing
of wealth instead of a communist construction of society. A
small anarchist commune is not a vast collaboration of men,
but a tiny group, which can even consist of as few as two or
three men. At Petrograd there existed such a group The'

T
T nion of Five Oppressed." According to the anarchist teach-
"
ings it might have been A Union of Two Oppressed." Imagine
what would happen if every five men or every couple of men
bi ,uan independently to requisition, confiscate, and then start

work at their own risk. There are in Russia about a hundred

million of the labouring population. If they were to form
"
unions of five oppressed," we should have in Russia twenty
millions of such communes. Imagine what a "Babel would en-m-
 2J

if these twenty million little communes began acting indep.

ently! What chaos ;iii(l anarchy we should have! Nor would
it he
surprising that if such groups began, independently of ,

other, to usurp the wealth of the rich, nothing but a sharin.

would result. And sharing-out leads, as we have seen abo\
the reign of capital all over again, to \iol.-nce and oppression of
the labouring masses.

CHAPTER V.
TO COMMUX1SM THROUCH 1'IIOLKTA I{ 1 AX
DICTATORSHIP,
How is communist order to he instituted? How is it
the
to he attained'.' To this the ommunist Party gives the follow-
(
1

ing answer: Through the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Dictatorship means a power of iron, a power that shows
no mercy to its foes. The dictatorship of the working da--
means the governing power of the working class, which is to
stifle the
bourgeoisie and the landowners. Such a government
1

of the workers can only arise out of a Socialist revolution of the

working class, which destroys the bourgeois State and bourgeois
power, and builds up a new State on its ruins that of the pro-
letariat itself and of the poorest elements supporting it.
This, in fact, is the reason why we stand for a workers'
State, whilst the anarchists are against it. That means to say
that we, communists, want 'a workers' government which we
MUST HAVE PROVISIONALLY, UNTIL THE WO UK IXC.
CLASS HAS COMPLETELY DFFFATFD ITS OIM'OX
FNTS, THOROUGHLY DRILLED THE WHOLE OF THK
HOUKdKOISIK, KXOCKFD THK CONCEIT OUT OF IT.
AND DFNIIYFD IT OF THE LAST SHHED OF HOI'F
EVEE TO RISE AGAIN TO POWER.
And communists, are for force, we
so you, maybe asked.
Certainly, we
shall reply. Hut we, are for REVOLUTIONARY
FORCE. First of all we think that by mere gentle persuasion
the working class will never attain anything at all. The road of
compromise, as pivachrd by the menshe\ iks and flic- socialist
revolutionaries, will lead nowhere. The working class will
achieve liberty in no other way except through a revolution, that
is to
say, through the overthrow of the power of capitalism,
 22

through the destruction of the bourgeois State. But every

revolution is a form of violence against former rulers. The
March revolution in Russia was force against the oppressors,
landlords and the Czar. The October revolution was force of
the workers, peasants and soldiers, against the bourgeoisie.
And 'such force against those who have oppressed millions of the
toiling masses is not wrong it is saered.
But the working class is eompelled to use force against the
bourgeoisie even after the bourgeoisie has been overthrown in
an open revolutionary right. For, as a matter of fact, even after
the working class has destroyed the government of the bour-
geoisie, the bourgeoisie does not cease to exist as a class. It
does not vanish altogether. It continues to hope for a return
to the old order, and is therefore read}' to form an alliance with
anyone, except the victorious working class.
The experience of the Russian revolution of 1 .U7 fully con-
(

firms this. In October the working class excluded the bour-

geoisie from the government. But, nevertheless, the bour-
geoisie was not completely crushed it acted against the workers,
:

by mobilising all its forces to crush the proletariat again,

and to achieve "its own ends by hook or by crook. It organised
sabotage .that is, counter-revolutionary officials, clerks, and
;

civil servants who did not wish to be subjected to workmen

and peasants, abandoned their posts en masse. It organised the
armed forces of Dutoff, Kaledin, Korniloff it is at present,
;

whilst we are writing these lines, organising the bands of Esaul

Semionoff for a campaign against the Serbian Soviets and ;

lastly it is calling to its aid the troops of the foreign bourgeoisie,

German, Japanese, British, etc. Thus the experience of the
Russian October revolution teaches us that the working class,
even after its victory, is compelled to have to deal with the
mightiest of external foes (the plundering capitalistic States)
who are on their way to aid the overthrown bourgeoisie of
Russia.
If weseriously consider the whole world at the present
time, we it is only in Russia that the proletariat
shall see that
]\i\< ^ucreoded in overthrowing the power of the bourgeois State.
The remainder of the world still b< -longs to lug-capital robbers.
Soviet Russia, with its worker and peasant government, is a
small island in Hie widst of a tempestuous capitalist ocean. And
oven if the victory of tin- Russian workers is to be followed by
a victory of the workers of Austria and Germany, there will still
 23

be left big vulture-like capitalist States. If all capita!

Europe breaks up and falls under tin- Mows of tin- working cl
flu-re will still the capitalistic, world ..)' Asia, \\itli Japan
In- left
like a. beast of prey at its brad. Tben WG have the capital of
America, at the head of which stands the monstrous plundering
union called the United States of America. All these capitalist
States will not give up their position without a fight They will .

light witli all their might to prevent the proletariat from getting
possession of the whole world. The mightier the onslaught of
the proletariat, the more dangerous -the position of the bour-
geoisie; the more necessary it becomes for the bourgeoisie t>
concentrate all its forces in the struggle against the proletariat.
The proletariat, having conquered in one, two, or three
countries, will inevitably come into collision with the rest of the
bourgeois world that will attempt to break by blood and iron
the efforts of the class that is fighting for its freedom.
What follows? It follows that prior to the establishment
of the communist order and after the abolition of capitalism,
in the interval between capitalism and communism, even after
socialistic revolutions in several countries, the working class
will have to endure a furious struggle with its inner and external
foes. And for such a struggle a strong, wide, welL-constructed
organisation required, having at its disposal all the" means ofl
is

fighting. An
organisation of this kind is the proletarian State,!
the power of the workers. The proletarian State, similar to'
other States, is an organisation of the dominant class (the domi-
nating class is here the working class), and an organisation of
force over the bourgeoisie, as a means of putting an end to the
bourgeoisie and getting rid of it.

He who afraid of this kind of force is not a revolutionist.

is
The question of force should not be regarded from the point of
view that every kind of force is pernicious. The force practised
by the rich against the poor, by capitalists towards workers
such force acts against the working class and aims at supporting j

and strengthening capitalistic plunder. But the forc<

workers against the bourgeoisie aims at freeing millions of/
working men from slavery it means redemption from the rod!
;

of capital, from plundering wars, from savage looting nnd :

destruction of all that mankind has been building up and

accumulating for ages and ages. That is why, in the making
of revolution and the forming of a communist order, the iron
rule, of a proletarian dictatorship is indispensable.
 24

It should be clear to everyone that,

during the transition
period, the working class will have to (and must do so now)
strain all its energy in order to emerge victorious in the battle
with its numerous enemies, and that no other
organisation can
defeat the enemies of the working class except one that embraces
the working class and the poorer peasantry of the whole
country.
How is it possible to ward off foreign imperialists unless one
holds in one's hands government, power, and an army? How is
it possible to
fight against counter-re volution unless one holds
in one's hands arms (a means of coercion), prisons for
confining
counter-revolutionaries (a means of coercion), and other means
of force and subjection? How
is it possible to make
capitalists
conform to the workers' control, requisitions, etc., if the work-
ing class possess no means for compelling others to obey? Of
"
course some may say that a couple of Unions of Five
"
Oppressed would be sufficient. That is nonsense.
The peculiarities of_a transition period call for the necessity
of a Workers' State. For even when the bourgeois will be
defeated all over the world, accustomed as
it is to idleness, and
imbued with feelings of hostility towards the workers, it will
do its best to avoid work, to try and injure the proletariat in
every way. The bourgeois must be made to serve the people.
Only an authorised government and compulsory measures can
do that.
In backward countries like Eussia there still exists a multi-
tude of small and medium property-holders, sweaters, usurers
and land-grabbers. All these are against the poorest elements
of the rural population and still more against the town labourers.
They follow in the wake of big capital and of the ex-estate
owners. It is needless to say that the workers and the poorest
of the peasants must crush them should theyrise against the
revolution. The workers have got to think how to organise a
new plan of work, systematise the work of production taken out
of the hands of the manufacturers, help the peasants to organise
rural economy and a fair distribution of bread, manufactured
goods, iron products, and so on. But the sweater-land-grabber,
grown fat on the war, is stubborn; he does not intend to act in
"
tho common interest. I am my own master," he says. The
worker* and the poor elements of the peasantry must compel
him to obey, just in the same way as they are compelling the
bi capitalists to obey, the
ex -landlords and ex-generals and
officers.
 23

The niotv precarious the position of the \\nrkrrs' revolution

is, and the more enemies it is Surrounded by, the ni"iv ruth
should be the workers' government, the heavier should l>e the
hand of tlie revolutionary workers and of tin- poorest elem<
of the peasantry, and the more energetic should be the dictator-
sliip. State government in the hands ot the working class is an
axe held in readiness against the bourgeoisie. In a Column
order, when the bourgeoisie has ceased to exist, and with it el
divisions and every kind of external as well as internal danger,
then the axe will be needed no longer. But in the transition
period, when the enemy is still showing his fangs, and i> readx
to drown the whole working class in a sea of blood (let us recall
to mind the shooting of the Finnish workmen, the executions
at Kiev, executions of workmen and peasants all over the
I'kraine and in Lithuania!), we will agree that to go un-
armed, to act without this axe of State government, would be
an act of folly.
Two parties are clamouring against the dictatorship of the
working class. On the, one side are the Anarchists; th
being against every kind of government, are therefore
against the government of the workers and peasants. To these
we can say, " If you are against the workers using means of
force against the bourgeoisie, then get you to a convent!"
On the other side, against the dictatorship of the workers
we have the Mensheviks and the Bight Socialist Revolutionaries
(though they were themselves formerly in favour of it). These,
are against encroaching upon the liberty .... of the
bourgeoisie. They are backing up the purse-proud bour-
geois to get for him that which he once possessed, and enable
him peacefully to saunter along the Nevsky Prospect in Petro-
grad or the Tverska\a at Moscow, "
etc. They maintain that the
"
working class is not \et ripe for a dictatorship. To them we
"
can say, You, sirs, defenders of the bourgeoisie, go to the
bourgeoisie whom JK>U love so much, but do leave the working
class and the poor peasantry alone."
Just because the Communist Party is an adherent of the
most rigid iron dictatorship of the workers over capitalists small
sweaters, late landowners,, and all other similar delightful relics
of the old bourgeois order it is for that very reason the ex-

tremest and most revolutionary of all existing groups and parties.

'

Through a mercilessly firm government of the workers,

through a proletarian dictatorship to Communism!" This'' is
the war cry of our party. And the programme of our party is
the programme of proletarian dictatorship.

CHAPTER VI.
A SOVIET GOVERNMENT OR A BOURGEOIS
REPUBLIC?
Our attitude towards the necessity of
dictatorship leads us,
as an inevitable result, to struggle against an anti-
quated" form of a parliamentary bourgeois republic (sometimes
called democratic "), and to our attempts at setting up instead
fa new form of State administration a government of the
(Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies.
The mensheviks and the right wing of the socialist revo-
lutionaries are staun&h supporters of the Constituent Assembly
and a parliamentary republic. They loudly abuse the govern-
ment of the Soviets. And why? First, because they are afraid
of the power of the workers, and desire to retain all power in
the hands of the bourgeoisie. But the communists who are
striving to realise the communist (socialist) order must inevit-
ably fight for the dictatorship of the proletariat and for the
complete overthrow of the bourgeoisie. That is where the differ-
ence lies. And for this very reason the parties of mensheviks
and socialist revolutionaries are at one with the party of the
bourgeoisie.
What is the essential difference between a parliamentary
republic and a republic of Soviets? It is, that in a soviet
republic the non-working elements are deprived of the franchise
and take 'no part in administrative affairs. The country is
governed by Soviets, which are elected by the toilers in the
places where they work, as factories, works, workshops, mines,
and in villages and hamlets. The bourgeoisie, ex-landowners,
bankers, speculating traders, merchants, shopkeepers, .usurers,
the Korniloff intellectuals, priests and bishops, in short the
whole of the black host have no right to vote, no fundamental
political rights. The foundation of a parliamentary republic is
formed by the Constituent Assembly, while the supreme organ
of the Soviet Republic is the Convention of Soviets. What is
the principal difference between the Convention of Soviets and
the Constituent Assembly ? Anybody with the least intelligence
 ai

can easily answer this question. Although the nini.^hrvik.

tin- right wing of the socialist revolutionaries do, as a matt

fact, try to muddle things by inventing various pompous nanu s

" '

such us, for instance, Master of the Kussian Land, still truth
will out. The Constituent Assembly differs from the Convention
of Soviets in as much as into the former are elected not only
tluj labourers, but also the bourgeoisie and all the bourge<

hangers-on. It consequently differs from the Convention <>f

Soviets in the fact that in the Constituent Assembly may sit not
only workers and peasants, but also bankers, landowners find
capitalists; not only the labour party (the communists), not only
the left wing of socialist revolutionaries, and even not only the
socialist traitors such as the right wing of the socialist revo-
lutionaries, but also the constitutional democrats (the party of
traitors to the people), the Black Hundred and the Octobrists.
This is the crowd for whom these honourable compromisers are
demanding enfranchisement. When they clamour for the
necessity of a "popular," "all-national" Constituent
Assembly, they do not consider the Soviets as all-national,
because the Russian bourgeoisie is lacking to complete the full
representation of the Russian people. To supplement working-
class representation with this crowd of parasites, to give these
enemies of the people all rights, to give them seats next to them-
selves in parliament, to transform the class government of
workers and peasants into a class government of the bourgeoisie
under the pretext of admitting all sections this is the task
of the right wing of the socialist revolutionaries, of the men-
she viks, of the constitutional democrats, in a word of big capital
and its petty bourgeois agents. The experience of all countries
shows that where the bourgeoisie enjoys all the rights, it invari-
ably deceives the working class and the poorest peasantry.
By holding the press, newspapers and magazines firmly in
its grasp, possessing as it does vast riches, bribing officials,
exploiting the services of hundreds of thousands of their agents,
threatening and intimidating the more downtrodden of tlu-ir
slaves, the bourgeois succeeds in preventing power from slip-
ping from its hands. At first sight it appears as if the whole
nation were voting, but in reality this screen is used by domi-
neering financial capital, which arranges matters to suit itself,
" "
and even boasts of allowing the people to vote and of pre-
"
serving all kinds of democratic liberties." This is the reason

why, in all countries where there is a bourgeois republic (take,

 28

for instance, France, Switzerland, and the United States of

America), notwithstanding universal suffrage, the power is com-
pletely concentrated in the hands of the leading bankers. And
so we see why the right wing of the socialist revolutionaries and
the mensheviks are striving to overthrow the power of the
Soviets and to summon the ''Constituent Assembly." In
granting votes to the bourgeoisie they intend to prepare for a
transition to a similar order of things as exists in France and
America. They consider that the Bussian workers are not
" "
ripe to hold the government in their own hands. But the
party of the communist-bolsheviks, on the contrary, holds that
dictatorship of the workers is essential at the present moment,
and that there can be no talk whatever of any transfer of govern-
ment. The bourgeoisie must be deprived of every possibility of
deceiving the people. The bourgeoisie must be set aside and
firmly prevented from taking any part in the government of the
country, because the present is a time of acute struggle. We
must strengthen and widen the dictatorship of the workers and
the poorer elements of the peasantry. That is why the State
government of Soviets is indispensable. Here we have no
bourgeoisie whatever, and no landowners. Here the state is
governed by the organisations of workers and peasants which*
have grown up together with the revolution and have borne
the whole burden of the great struggle on their own shoulders.
But this is not enough. An ordinary republic does not only
represent the power of the bourgeoisie. A republic of this kind
can never, by reason of its composition, become inspired with
the spirit of the workers' party. In a parliamentary republic
every citizen hands in his vote once in every four or five years,
and there his part in the matter ends. All the rest is left to
deputies, ministers and presidents, who manage everything.
There is no connection whatever with the masses. The masses
of the labouring people are only tools exploited by the officials
of the bourgeoisie, taking no real part in the government.
Quite a different matter is a Soviet republic, corresponding
to a dictatorship of the workers. Here the whole administration
is based on an entirely different principle. A Soviet government
is not an organisation of officials independent of the masses and

dependent on the bourgeoisie. The Soviet government and

its

organs are supported by general organisations of the working

class and the peasantry. Trade unions, works and factories
committees, local Soviets of workmen and peasants, soldiers'
 20

all these
rind sailors' organisations support the central Soviet
Government. From the Central Soviet l.>\vrnment thousands
(

and millions of threads spread in all directions: first these

threads go to district and provincial Soviets, then to the town
Soviets, from these to the town-parish Soviets, from these again
bhe factories and works, uniting hundreds of thousands of
workers. All the higher institutions of the Soviet ( iovcrnment
are organised on the same lines. Take, for instance, the supreme
council for public economy. It is composed of representatives
entral committees of trade unions, of factories and works
committees, and other organisations. Trade unions in their turn
unite whole branches of production; they have branches in
various towns and are supported by the organised masses at
I'ai-torics and works. To-day at every factory there is a factory
and woi'ks committee, which is elected by the workers of that
factory these factory and works' committees being again united.
;

And these, too, send their representatives to the Supreme

Council for Public Economy, which draws up economic plans
and directs production. Thus, here, too, the central organ of the
control of industry is composed of representatives of workers,
find is supported by mass organisations of the working class a nd(

of the poorest elements of the peasantry. This, then, is an

entirely different plan from that of a bourgeois republic. The
bourgeoisie is not only deprived of rights, and there is not only
a question of the country being governed by
representatives of
workers and peasants. The great thing isjhat the Soviets govern
the country, keeping in constant touch with the large unions
of (lie workers and peasants,. a nd thus the wide masses are all
%

the time taking part in the administration of the Workers' and

Peasants' ( !
vernmont. In this way each organised workman
exercises his influence. He takes part in the government of the
state not only by electing trusted representatives once a month
or two. No. The trade unions, say, work out a plan for organ-
ising production these plans are then considered by the Soviets
;

or by the Council for Public Economy, and then, if

they are
practicable they obtain the full force of law, after being approved
of by the Central Executive Committee of Soviets.
Any given
trade union, any woi'ks' and factories' committee, can in this
way take a part in the general work of creating a new order of
life. Tn a bourgeois republic the more indifferent the masses
nre, the happier is the government, because the interests of the
masses are opposed to those of the capitalist state. If, for in-
 30

stance, the masses of the North American Republic should take

matters into their own hands mean the end of the
that would
supremacy of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois State is based on
the deception of the masses, keeping them half-awake,
by the
method of depriving them of any active part in the
everyday
work of the state, by summoning them once every few voars
"
to vote,'' and by deceiving them with their own vote, "it is
an entirely different thing in a Soviet republic. The Soviet
republic, embodying the dictatorship of the masses, cannot even
for a minute tear itself away from these masses. Such a
republic is the stronger in proportion to the greater activity and
energy manifested by the masses and the more work accom-
plished at works and factories, in the towns and in the provinces.
It is not a matter of mere chance, therefore, that the Soviet
Government in issuing its decrees addresses the masses with the
demand that the workers and poorest peasants themselves
should carry these decrees into execution. That is why the
significance 'of various workers' and peasants' organisations
entirely changed after the October revolution. At first they were
weapons of the class struggle against the governing capitalists
and landowners. Take^ for example, the professional unions and
some small peasants' Soviets. At first they were compelled to
carry" 'orTii struggle for higher pay and a shorter working day in
the towns, and for depriving the landowners of the land in the
rural districts. At the present time, when the government is
in the hands of the workers and the peasants, these organisations
are becoming wheels in the machine of state government. At
present, the trade unions are not only fighting with the capi-
talists, but are taking an active part in the organisation of pro-
duction, as organs of a labour government, as part of the Soviet
State, in the administration of industry and in the same way
;

the village and peasants' Soviets not only have to carry on a

war with village sharks or sweaters, with the capitalists and
landowners, but are also working to establish a new land system ;

that is to say, they have the administration of the land in their

' '

hands as organs of a workers and peasants government they ;

are as screws and nuts in the huge machine of state administra-

tion, where the power is in the hands of the workmen and
peasants*
In this way, through the workers' and peasants' organisations,
the widest sections of the labouring masses have been gradually
called to the work of government. There is nothing like this in
 31

any other country. Nowhere but in Russia has the victory of

{lie working class and the establishment of a workers'
govern-
ment \et been achieved; no other country has yet a ^proletarian
dictatorshipjjior a Soviet l\epuhlic, nor a Soviet state.
It is very clearly understood that the Soviet !>ve nmient,
<

corresponding to the proletarian dictatorship, does not suit tl

Croups of the population that are interested in a return to capi-
talist slavery, instead of going ahead to a communist order. It
is also clear that
they cannot possibly say frankly and openly,
\ve want the whip and the stick for the workers."

I If re, too, a certain amount of deceit is Such

required.
deceit is the speciality of the right wing of the socialist revolu-
"
tionaries and of the mensheviks who are shouting about a
struggle for a democratic republic," about the Constituent
Assembly, which they declare will save us from all evils, and
so on. But as a matter of fact the real question here is to
transfer the government to the bourgeoisie. And in this funda-
mental question no agreement can possibly be arrived at between
us, communists, and the various mensheviks, right wing socialist
"
revolutionaries, the followers of the Novaya Zhisn," and the
rest of that fraternity. They, stand for capitalism, whilst we
stand for a movement towards Communism. They for a
government of the bourgeoisie, we for a dictatorship of the
workers they for a parliamentary bourgeois republic, where
;

capital will reign, wP for a Soviet Socialist Eepublic where all

the power belongs to the workers and the poorest elements of
the peasantry.
Until the present time, prior to the Russian Revolution of
lit 17, the
dictatorship of the proletariat was only written about.
But. no one seemed to have quite a clear idea as to how this
dictatorship was to be realised. The Russian Revolution evolved
tlie actual form of the dictatorship that of the Soviet Republic.
And therefore, at the present moment, the best sections of the
international proletariat are inscribing on their banners the
motto of a Soviet republic and of a Soviet government. A-nd
therefore, too, our task now consists in strengthening the Soviet
government by all the means in our power, and in clearing it
of various undesirable elements, in attracting to the task of
reconstruction a greater number of capable comrades, elected
by the working and peasant masses. Only such a government,
a government of the Soviets, a government of the workers and
 32

peasants, is what the workers and peasants can and should

defend.
Should our workers and peasants suffer defeats, should the
Constituent Assembly be really summoned, should the
place of
the Government of the Soviets be taken
by an ordinary bour-
geois republic after the manner of the French and American
Eepublic, then the worker should not only not be under any
obligation to defend it, but should make it the task of his life
to overthrow such a republic. For it is his
duty to defend the
government of the workers and not the government of the
bourgeoisie. With regard to the government of the bourgeoisie,
he has but one obligation, and that is to overthrow it.

CHAPTER VII.

FEEEDOM FOE THE WOEKING CLASS AND THE

POOEEST ELEMENTS OF THE PEASANTEY ;

EESTEICTIONS FOE THE BOUEGEOISIE.

(Freedom of Speech, Press, Unions, Meetings, etc.,
in the Soviet Eepublic.)

Since we have a dictatorship of workers and peasants whose

aim to crush the bourgeoisie completely and to put down any
is

attempt of reviving the bourgeois government, it is plain that

there can be no question of freedom, in the wide sense of the
word, for the bourgeoisie, just as there can be no question of
allowing the bourgeoisie the right of franchise, nor of trans-
forming the Soviet Government into a republican bourgeois
parliament.
The party of the Communists (bolsheviks) are overwhelmed
"
on all sides by shouts of indignation and even threats: You
stop newspapers, you m,ake arrests, you prohibit meetings, you
suppress the freedom of speech and of press, you revive des-
potism, you are violators and murderers," and much more to
" "
the same effect. It is this question of freedom in the Soviet
Eepublic that should be thoroughly discussed in detail.
First of all, let us take an example. When the revolution
broke out in March of last year (1917), Tzarist ministers were
arrested (Sturmer, Protoppopoff and others). Did anyone pro-
test? No! And yet these arrests, just as any other arrests,
were an infringement of personal freedom, Why was this in-
 83

fringernent universally approved of'.' And win do we still

"
at the present moment: Yes, that was tin- right thing to do ?*'
Simpl\ beeause it was tin- arrest of dangerous counter-revolu-
tionaries. And in a revolution, more than at any other time,
"
\\v should remember the eleventh Commandment: Be on the
look out!" If you are not, if you set all the enemies of the
people five, if you do not keep them under control, there will
be nothing h -ft to remember the revolution by !

Another example. When Sturmer and Goremikin were 1

he ing arrested, the Black Hundred press was closed. This was
a deliberate infringement of the freedom of the \Y
press.
justifiable?
Most certainly! And no reasonable being will
dispute that this was just what should have been done. And
why? Again, because at a time of revolution, when there is a
lite and death struggle going on, the enemy should be deprived
of his weapons. And the press is such a weapon.
Prior to the October revolution, several Black Hundred
"
societies (" The Two-Headed Eagle and a few others) were
closed down at Kiev. This was an infringement of the freedom
of association. But it was the right thing to do, .because the
revolution cannot permit the free organisation of unions against
the revolution.
When Komiloff was advancing on Petrograd, a number of
generals struck, refusing to obey the orders of the Provincial
Government. They declared they would support Korniloff to
the last. Was it possible to sanction such freedom of generals'
strikes? Surely for such strikes these Black Hundred generals
should have been subjected to .the severest punishment.
What docs ail this mean? Wesee now that infringement
of freedom is necessary with regard to the opponents of the
revolution. At a time of revolution we cannot allow freedom
for the enemies of the people and of th" revolution. That is a
surely clear, irrefutable conclusion.
After March and before October neither the nicnslicviks
nor the right socialist revolutionaries, nor the bourgeoisie, once
raised their voices against the usurpation of power by violence
in March, or against the suppression of freedom (of the Black
Hundred press), or speech (Black Hundred), etc. They never
once raised their voices against all this, because it was carried
out by the bourgeoisie, Goutchkoff, MiliukofT, Eodzinko, and
Tereschenko, and their loyal servants Kcrensky and Tzeretclli,
who had usurped power in March.
 B4

By October things had changed. In October the worker's

rose against the bourgeoisie who had trodden upon their necks
in March. In October the peasants supported the workers. It
clearly follows that the bourgeoisie grew to hate the workers'
revolution, and in its mad hatred behaved no better than the
landowners.
All the large property owners united
against the working
class and the poorest peasantry.
They gathered around the so-
called party of the people's freedom (in
reality the party of the
people's treason) against the people. And it is easy enough to
understand that when the people succeed in getting the upper
hand over their enemies the latter in their impotent fury cry,
" "
usurpers," violators," and so on.
The following is now clear to the workers and peasants.
The party of the Communists not only allows no freedom (such
as liberty of the press, speech, meetings, unions, etc.) for the
bourgeois enemies of the people, but goes still further and
demands of the government to be always ready to close the
bourgeois press, to break up gatherings of the enemies of the
people, to forbid their lying and libelling, and sowing panic the;

party must mercilessly suppress all attempts of the bourgeoisie

to return to power. And this is what is meant by dictatorship
of the proletariat.
When there is a question of the press, we first ask which
press the bourgeois or the workers' press; when there is a
question of gatherings, we ask what gatherings workers' or
counter-revolutionary when a question arises of strikes, the
;

first question for us is whether it is a strike of the workers

against the capitalists, or a sabotage instigated by the bour-
geoisie or the bourgeois intellectuals against the proletariat. He
who makes no distinction between these two things is groping
in the dark. The press, meetings, unions, etc., are weapons of
the class struggle. And in a revolutionary epoch they are the
weapons of civil war, together with munition stores,, machine
guns, powder and bombs. The great question is: which class
is using them as a weapon against the other. The workers'
revolution cannot possibly grant freedom for the organisation of
such risings as those of Korniloff, Dutoff, or Miliukoff against
the working masses. Neither can it allow full freedom of organ-
isation, of speech, press, and of meetings of the counter-revolu-
tionary bands who are stubbornly carrying on their own policy,
and only King in wait for a chance of throwing themsche... uj'"ii
the \\orkers and peasants.
As we have already seen, tin- right wing socialist revolu-
"
tionaries and mensheviks, in declaring their motto to be the
Constituent Assembly," arc only anxious for votes for the
bourgeoisie. And just in the same way \\hen t-he\ violently
abuse destruction of freedom they are anxious for the freedom
oj' the bourgeoisie. The bourgeois press, bourgeois leaders, the
counter-revolutionary bourgeois organisations are not to
touched this is the real position of the^e gentlemen.
But, they will say, you yourselves used to close both men
shevik and socialist revolutionary newspapers; the party <>f the
Communists has more than once encroached on the liberty of
worthy individuals, who in their time (in the reign of the T/ar)
suffered imprisonment. How can we justify that'.' 'This qi
tion max be answered by another: when (lot/., the right wing
socialist revolutionary, organised a rising () f Jmikers and officers
against the soldiers and the workers what were we to do'.
}
Pat
him on the head for it? "When Koudnetf, the right wing socialist
revolutionary together with Colonel Riabtzeff, in October
,

armed the Moscow

White (luards, consisting of the
sons of thebourgeoisie, houseowners, and other
gentry (the gilded youths), and in union with the officers
and junkers tried to suppress by machine guns and drown in
blood the October rising of workers and soldiers what could
we do? Decorate them with medals for their feats? \Yhen the
" "
nienshevik organ Forward (which ought really to be named
' " "
Backward ") and the socialist revolutionist Labour lied to
the Moscow workers at the critical moment of the struggle, that
Kerensky had taken Petrograd (which they did to break up the
unanimity of the workers), wen- we expected to praise them for
these provocatory tricks?
What follows from all this? It follows that when the
socialist traitors and socialist traitors' organs begin to serve the
bourgeoisie too fervently, or when they cease to differ in their
line of Hundred cadet organisers of
action from the Black
pogroms then they should and must be treated in the same
way as their beloved teachers and benefactors. At the present
moment there are many such, who, although having fought
against the Tzar and landowners, now cry at the top of their
voices when the workers seize the wealth of the bourgeoisie.
For what they have done in the past we render them our thanks.
13 ut if at the present moment they do not in any way differ from
the Black Hundred horde, then they can hardly expect us to
encourage them.
But whilst the bourgeoisie and all the other enemies of the
proletariat and poorest peasantry require a bridle to restrain
them, the proletariat and peasantry, on the other hand, need
complete freedom of speech, of association, and of the press,
etc., not only in word, but in fact. Never, under any govern-
ment, was there such a number of workers' and peasants'
organisations as there are now in the Soviet Government. Never
did any government support such a vast number of -workers'
and peasants' organisations as does the Soviet Government.
This is because the Soviet Government is the government ot
workers and peasants themselves, and it is no wonder therefore
that such a government supports all other working cla,ss organ-
isations as far as it lies in its power. We
repeat, the Com-
munists carry all this freedom into effect instead of merely
proclaiming it before the world. Here is a little example the :

freedom of the workers' press. Under the pressure of the work-

ing class even the bourgeoisie might agree to a greater or
smaller amount of freedom for the workers' press. But the
workers have no means all the printing works are in the hands
;

of the capitalists. Taper is in the hands of the capitalists, who

have bought up everything. The workers have the right to a
free press, but they are unable to make use of it. We, Com-
munists, on the other hand, approach the owners "
of printing
works and of paper works, and we say to them the proletarian
:

is about to confiscate your works and declare them

government
to be the property of the workers' and peasants' government,
"
and to place them at the disposal of the workers let them now
;

put their right to a free press into execution. Of course the

capitalists will set up a howl at such proceedings,
but it is the
only way to attain real freedom of the workers' press.
Another question may be put to us why did the bolsheviks
:

never before speak of the complete destruction of the freedom

of the bourgeois press? Whywere they formerly on the side
of a bourgeois democratic republic ? did they themselves
Why
side with the Constituent Assembly without ever expressing
themselves in favour of depriving the bourgeoisie of the fran-
chise? In a word, why have they changed their attitude now
in connection with this question?
The reason is very simple. The working class at that time
 37

was not yet powerful enough to storm the huurgenk fcirtivsx. It

Heeded time to prepare, to gather S< r. t<> -'nlighteIl the
'I !!.' t 1 1 ,

masses, to organise.
It lacked, for instance, a press of its own uninfluenced bv

the capitalist class. But it could not come to the capitalists and
their government and derriand
"
:close your newspapers. M
Capitalists, and start newspapers for us workers." They would
he laughed at; it would be ridiculous to put such demand
It would be
capitalists. equivalent to expecting the latter t<>
cut their hands off with their own knife. Such demands are
only made when a position is being taken by storm. Previously
there was no such time. And that is why the working class
"
(and our party) said Long live freedom of the press (the whole
:

press, the bourgeois press included) !" Or take another instance.

It is evident that employers' associations, such as throw workers
on the street, keep black lists, etc. These are very harmful to
the working class. But theworkrng class could not demand the
suppression of employers' associations and full liberty for labour
unions. To do this it was necessary first to destroy the capitalist
government, and the workers were not strong enough to do that .

That is why at that time our party demanded the freedom of

association ('not only workmen's), but unions in general.
Now times have changed. There is no question now of a
lengthy preparation for the battle we are now living in the
;

period after the storm, in the period after the first great victory
over the bourgeoisie. Now there is only one other problem before
the working class to finally and irretrievably break up the
:

resistance of the bourgeoisie.

That is why the working class, acting in the name of the
liberation of the whole of humanity from the atrocities and
terrors of capitalism, must carry out this task to a definite end
and with unswerving firmness. No indulgence for the bour-
geoisie and no leniency but complete h'berty and the possibility
of realising this liberty, to the working class and poorest
peasants.

CHAPTER VIII.
BANKS, THE COMMON PROPERTY OF THE WORKERS.
NATIONALISATION OF BANKS.
We have seen above that the cause of all evils in a capitalist
society lies in the fact that all the means of production belong
 38

to the landowners and capitalists. We have also seen that the

only way out of this is to take the means of production out of
the hands of the capitalist class (whether they be individual
capitalists, or trusts, or a bourgeois State), and to transfer them
into the hands of the working class. This can be done and is
being done, now, that the workers and peasants possess such a
.
strong weapon as is their Workers' Soviet Government.
It is perfectly understood that the first thing to be done
in this direction is to deprive capital of its most essential and
1 most important means of control to take the principal economic
:

fortresses of capital. The second is to begin with that which is

not only easier to take, but easier also to organise and have
control and account over, and which can be arranged in the
smoothest way. We already know that the task of the working
class and the poor peasantry does not consist in depriving the
rich of their wealth, distributing this wealth among themselves,
robbing and sharing the spoils. No it consists in constructing
;

society on the basis of labour, working according to a definite

plan, and organising the_pmduction and distribution of products.
Hence fE follows that the working class must first of all take
possession of these organisations which have up till now existed
only for the profits of the capitalist, and divert them to their own
use, by putting them on a different footing, thus making them
serve not capitalists and landowners, not speculators and sharks,
but the labouring mass.
That is why our party has put forward the demand (since
carried into execution) for the nationalisation of banks, that is
j

! to say, for the transfer of banks into the hands of the workers'
I and peasants' Government.
is generally believed that the chief significance of banks
It
lies in the fact that their vaults are packed with piles of gold
and heaps of paper money and valuables, for which reason the
Communists are so eager to get the banks. But in reality this
is not ihe case.
Modern banks are not only filled with money bags. Banks,
as a matter of fact, represent the pinnacle of capitalist organisa-
tionwhich rules industry. The industrial capitalists make profits
:

uninterruptedly, and capital flows to them in a continuous

:
stream. What does the capitalist do with the profit acquired?
A part of it is spont on eating, drinking and dissipation. Another
is saved for extending his business at
part, considerably larger,
any given moment : he can only do so when a large enough
 a IW UW ^ *
39
" "
balance has accumulated, a sum big enough, Id us say, to
build a newfactory or set up a new plant. Until that happens
" "
he deposits his money into the bank so as not to have dead
capital on his hands. He deposits it and gets definite interest
on it. The question no\v is, does this capital remain i-n the bank,
increasing there of itself? Certainly not. The bank transacts
business with this money. It either establishes enterprises,
making solid profits, or purchases shares of existing enterprises,
or shares of enterprises just being formed. The dividend it
obtains on its shares are considerably higher than the sums it
pays to its clients.
to form tin- profit, of the bank. This
The^jliffe^ejice. goes
difference accumulates, is a glim involved in transactions, and
in this way the capital of the bank increases. Gradually the
banks become the real heads of industrial enterprises; some
enterprises are entirely owned by them, others, only partly.
Experience has shown that it is enough to own thirty or forty per
cent, of the total shares to become practically the controller of
the whole enterprise. And that is what really happens. For
instance, two bajoksjoaanage and direct the entire industry of
America. Tn (lermany four banks hold in their hands the whole
economic life of the country. The same thing to a certain extent
held good for Russia. The great majority of big enterprises in
Ivussia wore limited companies.
.Russian banks, too, were the owners of a large number of
shares of these enterprises, so that the limited companies were
in the closest union and in complete dependence on the bankers
were, in fact, under their heel. Seeing that one bank rules
over many industrial enterprises, it is evident that a number of
the largest banks are in reality the main directors of industry,
the centre as it wore, in which the threads of various enterprises
meet. That is why confiscating the hanks, depriving private
persons of control over banks, and transferring them into the
hands of the workers' and peasants' government, in a word, the
nationalisation of banks, should become a question of paramount
importance to the working class. In response to this, the
bourgeoisie, together with its press and the "
rest of its suite,
have, of course, raised the cry of alarm : the bolsheviks are
robbers! The bolsheviks are thieves! Do not allow them to
plunder the national wealth and the national savings!" But the
reason for all this clamour is self-evident: the bourgeoisie felt
that the nationalisation of banks was a transfer to the working
 40

class of the main fortress of capitalistic society and therefore

the first decisive step towards the destruction of their gain and
exploitation. Once the proletariat has laid its hand on the
banks, that means that it has already taken into its hands to a
great extent the reins of industry.
!
On the other hand, it is not hard to see that without the
nationalisation of banks it would have been impossible to weaken
the power of the capitalist in works and factories. The modern
factory depends on the bank either the bank simply owns the
;

whole factory or a part of its shares. In some cases it allows

the factory credit in one form or another. Let us now suppose
that the workmen of a certain factory have taken everything
under their own control. If the bank of that factory is a private
concern belonging to the bourgeoisie, the whole factory must
stop work : it will simply be informed
by the bank that there
will be no further credit. And that is equivalent to cutting off
a fortress from supplies. Under such conditions the workers
would inevitably have to surrender and bow the knee to the
master. That means that, in nationalising the banks, the Soviet
Government simultaneously acquires the power of directing and
managing finance, and various bonds and certificates which
serve as substitutes for money; and thereby the bank, instead
of hindering the transfer of industry into the hands of the work-
ing class, on the contrary lends its assistance in such transfer.
The power that in the hands of the bankers was directed against
the workers, now under these new circumstances becomes a
power helping the working class, and directed against the
capitalists.
The next task consists in uniting the different and formerly
private banks into one national bank, to unite the work
of the
banks or, as it is called, to centralise the banking business. In
that case the transfer of industry into the hands of the working
class would convert the national bank into the principal counting
he-use ;
an institution affecting mutual "payments" between
different enterprises and separate branches of production. Let
us suppose that the coal, steel, and iron industries depended on
the central bank. Each one of these lias to utilise the products
of the others; the steel foundries must receive their coal from
the coal mi-lie-;, tin- ^.t.-el works must get their ste^l IV. .m the
foundries, and BO on. It is evident that since all th<
"
all kinds of
prises depend entirely upon the bank, pavm>
can be settled by the, mere transfer of accounts; bank* b<
 41

simply counting houses for central book-keeping, where the

relations between the various sections of industry are made
clear. In accordance with these relationships the hank supports
(" finances ") industry, supporting it with financial supplies.
TTltinwteh should we he successful in duly organising the
,

whole business (and that is what our party and the Soviet
(iovermnent at the head of which our party stands, is striving
,

for) it would result in the following state of things: they are

united by means of central national banks, at which the threads
of the separate enterprises meet, grouped according to their
respective specialities. The bank keeps an exact account of
these enterprises and of all transactions effected between them
which mutually counterbalance as one branch of production
supplies products for another. In the bank, the book-keeping
department of communal production, the general position of
production is in this manner neglected. The centralised and
nationalised hanking business (that is to say, the united banking
business that is in the hands of the workers' and peasants'
State) is converted into a communal book-keeping department
of the socialist co-operative production.

CHAPTER IX.

INDUSTRY TO BELONG TO THE WORKING CLASS.

(NATIONALISATION OF INDUSTRY.)
Although the most important step towards obtaining the
means of production from the hands of exploiters is, as w e have
r

seen above, the proletarian nationalisation of banks, neverthe-

less, if in industry, in factories and works, the power of capi-

talists will still be maintained, no very desirable results would

have been achieved. These enterprises would draw such sums
a~> they required from the bank, and tin capitalists would calmly
1

go on exploiting their workers, and would even manage to beg

for State subsidies to be spent on all kinds of things. And there-
fore a transition to a Communist order, which is unattainable
without the nationalisation of hanks, is just as unattainable
without the proletarian nationalisation of all large industrial
enterprisi
In, this direction, too, the working class and our party are
 42

taking such steps to enable us not only to break with the old,
taking the reins of production out of the hands of capitalists,
'but to create a new standard of relations.
I That is why the
nationalisation of industry must begin with large enterprises,
namely, in the first place with the so-called syndicates.
What is syndicated industry (industries united in syndi-
cates)? Syndicates are huge industrial' combines. When capi-
talist owners of various enterprises see that it is not worth their
while to compete for each others clients, and that it is far more
profitable to form a close union for the purpose of jointly fleecing
the public, they organise syndicates or still closer combiner of
manufacturers, namely trusts. When promoters are not
united in such unions, each one tries to bring down the prices
of his rival each one wishes to w in over his competitor's client,
:
r

and this can only be done if he sells goods cheaper, thus ulti-
mately ruining his rival, who is unable to withstand the com-
petition. This sort of struggle' between the rich manufacturers
invariably leads to the ruin of the smaller man the big sharks
:

of capitalism and the richest manufacturers come out victorious.

Let us now suppose that in some one branch of industry* (say the
metallurgic) three or four big firms remain. If one of them is
stronger it carries on the struggle until the rest are ruined. But
supposing that their powers are approximately the same, then
it is evident that a mutual struggle is fruitless it will result
:

in the exhaustion of all the rivals to an equal extent. In such

cases we generally see an attempt to come to an understanding ;

they organise a union of these enterprises and make an agree-

ment not to sell their goods below a fixed price they distribute
;

the orders among themselves, or appoint one firm to do business

in one part of the country and another firm in another; in a
word, they amicably divide the market between themselves. As
the firms united into a syndicate usually supply much more
than half the products required for a given area, that means
that the syndicate dominates over the market, and that the
directors of the syndicates can fix very high prices and fleece
their buyers like sheep. But once they join a union it is natural
that they are compelled to form a joint board of management
for the formerly separate enterprises and to keep a strict account
of all the goods produced, to organise the distribution of orders,
in a word, they are compelled to organise production. Not for
the people, not for the sake of the buyer's advantage. Oh, no !

Only for their >wn profits and gains, and for

tho sake of. oye?-
 43

s 111.- worker and fleering the buyer: that is the real

purpose for which capitalists form their unions.
It has no\v been made clear why the working class must
first of all proceed to nationalise those branches of
production
which are syndicated. It is because such branches have ah
been organised by the capitalists, and such production.
when organised by capitalists, is easiest to deal with. It is, of
course, necessary somewhat to modify the capitalist organisai
tions, ridding them of the most obdurate enemies of the working
class; we must strengthen the position of the workers in such
a way that everything shbuld be
subjected to the workers; and,
in the process, abolish certain things altogether. Even a child
can understand why such companies are easiest to conquer.
Here the same thing is repeated as in the case of Government
railroads ; being organised by a bourgeois Government, their
management was, for that very reason, worked on a principle
of centralisation, and it was easier for the Workers' Government
to take them into its own hands.
In Western Europe (especially in Germany) and in the
United States of America, practically the whole" of production
during the time of the war has fallen into the hands of the
plundering bourgeois Government. The bourgeoisie decided
that it would never attain a victory unless the war was con-
ducted in accordance with the latest dictates of science. And
modern warfare demands not only expenditure of money, but
necessitates all production to be organised for the purpose of
the war, a strict account being registered of everything, so that
there be no waste and all things be correctly distributed. All
this is possible when there is a central united management. It
is needless to say that production is not organised for the benefit
of the working class, but only for the purpose of conducting the
war and of affording the bourgeoisie still more chances of enrich-
ing themselves. No wonder, then, that at the head of this
system of penal servitude there stand generals, bankers, and
the greatest exploiters. Nor is it surprising that the working
class in those countries are oppressed and turned into white
slaves or serfs. But, on the other hand, if the workers there
succeed in shattering the machinery of the bourgeois State, it
will be quite easy for them to take possession of the means of
production and arrange it on a new plan they will have to drive
;

the generals and bankers out, and put their own men every-
where but they will be able to iise that apparatus for checking
;
 44

and control that has been created for them

by the vultures of
capitalism. That is why it is infinitely harder for the Western
European workers to begin destroying the most powerful of
bourgeois States, but it will be also much easier to conclude the
task, having at their disposal the means of production organised
by the bourgeoisie.
The Russian bourgeoisie, seeing that its power was not very
secure, and that the proletariat was near a victory, was afraid
to start decisively along the road traced by the Western Euro-
pean bourgeoisie. It understood that, together with the Govern-
ment power, organised production would fall into the hands of
the working class. And therefore the Russian
bourgeoisie not
only did not care to improve its organisation, but, on the con-
trary, strove to disorganise, and at the time of Kerensky, had
recourse to sabotage as a means of ruining production.
However, it is to be noted that, even prior to the war, in
Russia, partly owing to foreign capital, the most important
spheres of industry were already syndicated. This especially
applies to the so-called heavy branches of industry (coal mining,
metallurgic industry, etc.). It is this heavy industry that must
be nationalised first (and this is already being done production
:

in the Ural district, for instance, being practically entirely

nationalised). After that, the whole of big production should be
nationalised. Together with the transfer of big industry into
the hands of the Workers' Government, the less important in-
dustries will also become dependent on the Government, be-
cause very many lesser industries depended to a great extent
on the greater ones even before any nationalisation took place.
Sometimes these smaller firms are no more than branches of
larger concerns, depending on them for orders. In other cases
they supply their produce to the larger concerns in others they
;

depend on them for supplies of raw material; sometimes they

depend on the banks, and so on. Together with the nationalisa-
tion of banks and of large industry, they immediately become
dependent in some way or other upon nationalised production.
Of course, there will still remain a number of small owners and
proprietors of small home industries, etc. There are a great
number such in Russia. But, nevertheless, the basis of our
of
industry not the above named workshops, but the large
is
scale industry, and the nationalisation by the Workers' Govern-
ment of this kind of production deals capitalism an irreparable
blow. The banks and large scale industry are the two main
 45

fortresses of capitalism. Their expropriation, thai is to say,

their sei/ure by the. working class and the Workers' Govern-
ment, marks the end of capitalism and the beginning of
Socialism'. The means of production, that principal basis of
human existence, thereby taken out of the hands of a small
is

number of exploiters and transferred into the hands of the

working class and the Workers' and Peasants' Government.
The Mensheviks and the Eight Wing Socialist Revolution-
aries, who do not wish to deviate one step from capitalism, and
who are going hand in hand with the bourgeoisie, are opposed
to any kind of nationalisation by the Soviet Government. That
is because they are fully aware, as well as the bourgeoisie, that

by nationalisation a severe blow is dealt into the very heart of

the capitalist order, so dear to them. They deliberately deceive
" "
the workers with tales of our immaturity for Socialism, of
our industry being in a backward state, of it being quite impos-
sible to organise,and so on.
We have already seen that this is not the case at all. The
backwardness of Russia is not in the small number of large
enterprises on the contrary, we have quite a number of such.
Its backwardness consists in the fact that the whole of our
industry occupies too little place in comparison with the vast
areas of our rural districts. But in spite of this we must not
importance of our industry, for it is a significant fact
belittle the
that the working class is carrying all the vital elements of the
Revolution along with it.
There is another curious circumstance to be noted. All the
time when the Government was in the hands of the bourgeoisie,
Mensheviks and Right Wing Socialist Revolutionaries, these
latter drew up a programme of Government regulation of in-
dustry. They did not then lament over the backwardness of
our country. At that time they considered it possible to organise
industry. What is the reason for such change in opinion? It
is simple enough. The Mensheviks and Right Wing Socialist
Revolutionaries hold it necessary for the bourgeois State to
organise production (in Western Europe this would be agreed
to by Wilhelm, George- and President Wilson) the party of the
.;

Communists, on the contrary, wants production to be organised

b\ a proletarian Government. The thing is indeed simplicity
itself. It is the sam- story all over a.^ain. The Mcnsheviks and
Socialist Revolutionaries want to revert to capitalism the Com-
;

munists are going ahead to Socialism and Communism, and the

 46

most important step on the road towards Communism ^

consider to be the nationalisation of banks and the nationalisa-
tion of large-scale production.

CHAPTER X.
COMMUNAL CULTIVATION OF PUBLIC LAND.
The October Revolution accomplished that for which the
Russian peasants had been striving during many centuries. It
deprived the landowners of the land and transferred it into the
hands of the peasants. The question now is how to allot this
land. And here, too, we Communists must take up the same
position as we
did regarding the question of arranging industrial
production. Unlike a factory, land can, of course, be divided.
But what would be the result of dividing up land into private
allotments amongst individual peasants? The result would be
that the man who had managed to save up a little money, being
" "
stronger and richer, would soon. become a personality and
turn into a shark, a land-grabber or a usurer then he would aim
;

still higher and begin buying

up the land of those who were
getting poorer. Before long the village would be again divided
into big landowners and poor peasants, the latter having no
alternative but to go to town in search of work or hire himself
out to the rich landowner.
These new landowners would not, it is true, belong to the
gentry, being only rich peasants, but the difference is after all
a small one. The exploiting peasant-landowner is a real vam-
pire he will sweat the poor worker even harder than the repre-
;

sentative of the degenerating, impoverished, and thoroughly

incapable nobility.
This shows us that the plan of dividing or sharing the land
r offers us no way outof the dilemma. The only solution is in a
I communal national
holding of land in land being declared the
;

\common property of the labourers. The Soviet Government has

made a law of socialisation of land the land has in fact been
;

taken from the landowners, and it has become the common

property of the toiling people.
But that is not enough. We must aim at such an arrange-
ment as would ensure the land being not only owned in common,
but also be cultivated in common. If that is not done, then no
 m.-'.iter what YOU proclaim of whatever laws you publish, the
result will be most unsatisfactory. One man will fuss ab< i

his allotment, another on his, and

they continue to live apart
if

without mutual aid and common work, they will gradually com.
to look upon the land as their private
property, and no laws
from above would be of any use. Common cultivation of the
soil is what should be aimed at.
In agriculture, just as in industry, it is easiest to can
production on a large scale. With large-scale production it is
possible to use good agricultural machines effecting a saving of
all kinds of material, to
arrange the work according to one single
plan, to put every workman to the most suitable job, and to
keep a strict account of everything, thus preventing undue waste
ther materials or labour-power. Our task, therefore, docs
not at all consist in making every peasant a
manager of his own
small allotment, but in making the poorer peasants join a
common scheme of work on the largest possible scale.
Mow is this to be done V This can and must be done in two
ways first, co-operative cultivation of what were formerly big
:

estates; and secondly, by organising agricultural labour com-

munes.
Jn the estate's of former Landowners where the land was not
leased to the peasants as a whole, and where there existed the
private direction of the landlord, t'ie estate was, of course, ever
so much better managed than the
peasants'. The evil was that
the entire profits felLJnto the hands of the landowners, who
oppressed the peasants. ^And here again there is one thing clear
to the Communists: just as there is no sense whatever in the
factory workers plundering the factory plant, to share them
between themselves, in ruining the factory, so would it be
equally senseless for the peasants to act in the same manner on
the land. On the big private estates there is often much that
is valuable: horses, cattle, different kinds of
implements, stocks
of seeds, reaping and other kinds of agricultural machines, and
so on. In other estates, ag;iin, there are dairies, cheese churns,
(jiiite large works in fact. And it would be senseless to plunder
all that and drag it away to the different
cottages. The village
exploiters would be interested in that, knowing that sooner or
later all these things would fall into their hands again, as they
would buy up the p. .or men's shares.
The exploiting country shark clearly understands that such
"
a sharing will in theend be to his benefit." But the interests
 48

of the poorest peasantry, of the

proletariat, and of all those who
eked out a poor living independently by selling their labour-
power, lie in quite another direction. For the poorest peasants
it is far more profitable to deal with
"
the large estates in just
the same way as the workers are dealing with the factories,"
that is, to take them under their control and to
management,
cultivate the former landowner's estates in common, and not
plundering and carrying off the machines and plant, but using
jointly such machines and plant that formerly belonged to the
landowners and have now become the property of the labourers.
They could call to their aid agricultural experts, competent men,
to help them cultivate the land not in a casual
way, but prop-
erly, so that it should yield not less than when it belonged to
the landlord, but much more. It is not difficult to seize the
land; neither did it prove difficult to seize private estates. It
had to be done. In spite of all that the Socialist [Revolutionaries
and Mensheviks did to dissuade the peasants (pointing out the
lawlessness of such an action, and saying that the whole thing
would be useless and result only in bloodshed, and so on), the
peasants, in spite of every thing, took the land, and the Soviet
Government helped them to do it. It is a far harder task for
the workers to retain the land, defending it from the exploiting
village sharks whose eyes are already lighting up with greed at
At this point the poorest peasants
the prospect of seizing it.
should remember that theymust carefully guard the safety of
communal property. For now the wealth that was formerly
the landowner's has become the property of the whole com-
munity. It should be improved for the benefit of all the workers.
Things should be organised in such a manner that the delegates
of the poorest peasantry and of the labourers and those of the
regional Soviets and their land departments, should have charge
of everything, so as not to allow any w aste, and should lend
r

their assistance in the joint cultivation of the land. The more

ordered the joint production in such estates will be, the better
it will be for the workers. All this means that the land will
yield better crops, the village exploiters will be foiled, and the
peasant will be trained in co-operative production, the latter a
most important principle of Communism.
But it is not enough to preserve the estates r.f the former
hmduwners and cultivate them on new principles. We must
strive to organise large joint agricultural labour communes by
uniting separate allotments. For now the Government is in
 49

the hands of the workers and peasants. That means that this
Government will, as far as it lies within its power, assist the
peasants in any useful undertaking. It is only necessary for the
poorest peasants and semi-proletariat, as well as the late farm
hands, to manifest greater activity, more personal initiative.
The weak, poverty-stricken peasants, working each one by him-
self, can achieve nothing; they will hardly be able to exist. But.
they will attain a great deal onee they begin to unite their allot-
ments, jointly purchasing machinery with the aid of the town
workers, and in this manner cultivating the land in common, on
a basis of common interests.
The town Soviets and economic organisations of the wor-
kers will assist such labour agricultural communes, supplying
them with iron and manufactured goods, and they will help
them by recommending land experts and competent men. And
thus gradually the once poor peasant, who has never seen any-
thing beyond his native town, will begin to be transformed into
a comrade, who, hand in hand with others, will march along
the road of communal labour.
It has now been made clear that to organise matters in this
direction we must have a solid organisation of the poorest
elements of the peasantry. This organisation must accomplish
two principle tasks the first is the struggle with the country
;

sharks, usurers, former inn-keepers, in a word, with the former

bourgeoisie the second is the organisation of agricultural pro-
;

duct ion and the control over the distribution of land, the organ-
isation of labour communes and the management of the estates
of former landowners with a view to their best possible utilisa-
tion; in other words, they must set before themselves the great
task of a new reconstruction of land. The poorest peasantry
should form such organisations in the shape of regional Soviets,
and should introduce into them special departments such as, for
instance, a food supply department, a land department, and
others. The land departments of the peasants' Soviets should
form the chief support of the poorest elements of the peasantry
in connection with the land question. To arrange matters on a
firmer basis it would be best to construct these Soviet organisa-
tions in such a way that the local and neighbouring factory
workers should also have their representatives. Workmen are a
more experienced set of people than the peasants, they are used
to joint business organisations, and are also more experienced in
the struggle against the bourgeoisie. The factory workers wiU
 50

always help the village poor against the rich, and therefore the
former will ever find in them their staunchest allies.
The village poor should not allow themselves to be
duped.
They have fought and struggled for the land, and they have
finally won it from the landlords. They must see that
they do
not lose it again They must see that they do not let it slip
!

through their fingers !The danger is there if they are going to

work in the direction of sub-dividing the land and
sharing it out
into private lots. The danger will vanish if the rural poor,
together with the working class, go along the road of joint pro-
duction on as large a scale as possible. Then we shall all
proceed at top speed towards Communism.

CHAPTER XI.
_ WOEKEES' MANAGEMENT OF PEODTJCTION.
Just as in connection with the land, the leading part in the
management in the various localities is gradually transferred to
the organisations _of_the poorest peasantry and the different
peasant Soviets and their departments, so is industrial manage-
ment gradually being transferred (which is exactly what our
party expects)- into the hands of the workers' and peasants'
government.
Prior to the October revolution and in the period imme-
diately following upon it, the working class and our party put
forward the demandu lor..^L..workers' control,, that is to say, for
workers' supervision over factories and works to prevent the
capitalists from making secret reserves of fuel and raw materials,
to see that they did not cheat or speculate, damage goods or
dismiss workers unjustly. A workers' supervision was insti-
tuted over production, as well as over the sale and purchase of
products, raw materials, their storage, and the financing of
enterprises. However, a mere supervision proved inefficient.
Especially did this prove insufficient when the nationalisation
of production took place and the various privileges of the capi-
talists were destroyed, and when enterprises and whole branches
of industry were transferred into the hands of the workers' and
peasants' government. It is easy to see that a mere supervision
is quite inefficient, and that what is required is not only a

workers' control but workers' management of industry; wori

 51

organisations, works' and factories' committees, trad.' unions,

economic branches of the Soviets, of workers' deputies, and
finally organs of the Workers' and Peasants' lovernnient (such
(

as special committees, Soviets of public economy, and so on).

These are the organisations that should not only supervise but
should also manage. There is another tiling that attention
should be drawn to here.
Some of the workers who are not sufficiently imbued with
the class-spirit argue as follows we are here to take our factory
:

into our own hands, and there is an end to the matter. Before,
the factory was the property of, say, Mr. Smith; now it is the
property of the workers. Such a point of view is, of course,
wrong, and closely resembles dividing. Indeed, if a state of
affairs came about in which every factory belongs to the
workers of only that particular factory, the result would be a
competition between factories one cloth factory would strive
:

to gain more than another, they would strive to win over earh
others customers the workers of one factory would be ruined
;

whilst those of another would prosper these latter would employ

;

the workers of the ruined factory, and, in a word, we have again

the old familiar picture; just as in the case of the sharing out
capitalism would soon revive. ,

Howare we to fight against it? It is evident that we must i

build up such an order of workers' management of enterprises

which would train the workers in the idea that every factory
is the property not only of the workers of that particular factory,
but of the whole working people. This can be attained in the
following way. Every factory and works should have a board
of management composed of -workers in such a way that the
majority of members should belong not to that factory in ques-
tion,but should consist of workers delegated by trade* unions of
the branch of industry, by the Soviet of Workers'
special
Deputies, and finally by the local Soviet of Public Economy.
If the board is composed of workers and of employees (the
workers must be in the majority, as they are more reliable
adherents to Communism), and if the majority of workers should
belong to other factories, then the factory will be managed in
the manner required for furthering the interests of all workers
as a class.
Every workej* understands that works and factories cannot
.

do without book-keepers, mechanics, engineers, etc. Therefore

another ta*k of the working class lies in enlisting these into
 52

their service. So far the working class could not produce such
specialists from their own midst (but they will be able to do so
when plans of general education will have been carried out
successfully, and a special higher education will have become
accessible to everybody), until that time, of course, we shall
have, willy-nilly, to pay high wages to ordinary specialists. Let
them now serve the working class just as they formerly did the
bourgeoisie. Formerly they wore under the control and super-
vision of the bourgeoisie now they will have to be under the
;

supervision and control of the workers and employees.

To ensure a smooth running of the wheels of industry it is
indispensable, as we have already explained, to have one general
plan. It is not enough for every large factory to have its own
board of management consisting of workers. There are many
factories and many branches of production they are all bound
;

to one another, all inter-dependent if the coal mine yields little

:

coal the result will be that factories and railroads will be brought
to a standstill; if there is no petrol, navigation is impeded; if
no cotton, there will be no work to do for the textile factories.
It is consequently necessary to form such an organisation which
should embrace all production, should be based on a general
plan, and be united with workers' boards of management of
other works and factories should keep an exact account of all
;

requirements and reserves, not only of one town or of one

factory, but for the whole country. The necessity for such a
general plan is especially evident in the case* of railroads. Any
child can understand that the disorganisation in the working of
railroads causes incredible calamities; in Siberia, for instance,
there is a super-abundance of bread, whilst Petrograd is on the
verge of famine. Why is this ? Because the bread is beyond the
reach of the inhabitants of Petrograd, as it is impossible to trans-
port it. To ensure regular traffic it is necessary that everything
be strictly registered and correctly distributed. And this is only
that one mile
possible under one uniform plan. Let us imagine
of the railroad is under one management, another is under a
different one, third, and so on, all working
and a third under a
independently of each other. An indescribable muddle would
be the result. Such a muddle could be avoided only by con-
ducting the railway through a single centralised management.
Hence the necessity arises for such workers' organs and labour
organisations as would unite entire
branches of production to
each other, one whole,
complete and which would
forming
 53

limit-the work done in different parts of the country, as, for

instance, Siberia and the 'nil districts, the northern provinces,
I

the centre, and so on. Such organs are in the course of con-
struction: the\ are the district and regional Soviets of Public.
Economy, special committees uniting whole, branches of pro-
duction or commerce (as, for instance, Qentro- text lie, Centro
sugar, and so on), and over all the rest- we have, as a central
organisation, the Supreme Council (Soviet) of Public Economy.
All these organisations are connected with the Soviets of the
workers' deputies and work in unison with the Soviet Govern-
ment. Their staff is mainly composed of representatives of
workers' organisations, and they are supported by trade unions,
works' and factories' committees, unions of employees, and so
on.
In this way gradually a workers' management of industry
isbeing formed from the top of the ladder to the bottom. In
the respective localities we have works' and factories' com-
mittees and the workers' board of management, and above those
the region and district committees, and Soviets of Public
Economy, and at the head of all these organisations w e have the
r

Supreme Council of Public Economy. The task of the working

class now lies enlarging and strengthening by all possible
in
means the workers' management of industry, educating the vast
masses of the people in this direction. The proletariat taking
production into his own hands, not as the property of separate
individuals or groups, but as the property of the whole workings
class, should concern itself with supporting the central and dis-
trict workers' organisations by thousands of branches, by \
and at the various works and -factories. If the higher organs of
workers' hoards of management in the localities of pro-
duction are not supported by the local ones, they will
hover, as it were, in mid air, and become transformed into
bureaucratic, institutions devoid of any live revolutionary spirit.
Hut, on the other hand, they will be enabled to cope w ith the
r

terrible existing disorganisation if they are supported on all sides

li\ the vital forces of the workers in every locality, and every
command of the workers' central organisation will be responded
to and executed not as a matter of form, but as a matter of duty
by the workers.' organisal ions and b\ the working masses in their
ctive localities. The more the masses discuss matters for
themselves, the more keen their interest in the election of th-ir
hoards, the more work carried on at the works and factories, the
 54

greater the part they take in the business of doing away with all
kinds of disorder and dishonesty the sooner will the working
class possess itself not only in word but in deed of the whole
industrial production, thus realising not merely a political, but
even an economic dictatorship of the working class, that is to
say, the working class will become the actual master not only
of the army, the courts of justice, schools and other depart-
ments, but it will also be at the head of the management of pro-
duction. Only then will the might of capital be completely
rooted out, and the possibility for capital ever again to crush
the working class under its heel be completely destroyed.

CHAPTER XII.

BREAD ONLY FOE THE WORKERS. COMPULSORY

LABOUR SERVICE FOR THE RICH.
A transition to the communal order means a transition to
an order where there w ill be ncT class difference between people,
r

and where all will be communal workers and never hired

labourers. It is necessary to pass immediately on to the
organisation of such an order. And one of the first steps in this
direction on a parallel with a proletarian nationalisation of banks
and of industry, is the introduction of labour service for the rich.
There are at present many people who do nothing, create
nothing, but consume that which others have made. And more
than that, there are people who not only do no work, but whose
whole activity is directed at hindering and interfering with the
work of tin- Soviet Government and the working class. The
workers saw with their own eyes the instance of the sabotage
attempted by the Russian "
intellectuals, teachers, engineers,
doctors and others of the learned professions." It would be
superfluous to mention the bigger game such as directors of
factories and banks, the late high officials, etc. They all made
efforts to disorganise and destroy at the root the work of the
proletm-iat :tnd the Soviet Government. The task of the pro-
let :iriat consists in compelling these bourgeoisie, former land-

owners, and numerous intellectuals of the well-to-do classes to

work for the common good. How is this to be done ? By means
 55

nf introducing labour record books and labour service.

Every
one of the above-named class should receive a special book in
which an account is kept of his work, that is to Bay, of his com
pulsory service. Fixed entries in his book entitle him to buy
or receive certain food products, bread in the first place. Any-
one who refuses to work, supposing he sabotages (an ex-official,
a former manufacturer or landowner who cannot possibly
accustom himself to the idea of the loss of land on which he has
lived for years and has become a frenzied enemy of the workers),
if such an individual refuses to work there is no
corresponding
"
entry in his book. He goes to the-store, but is told, There is
nothing for you. Please to show an entry confirming your
work."
Under such a system the mass of idlers who fill the Nevsky
Prospect in Petrograd and the main streets of other big towns,
will have to set to work against their will. It is perfectly under-
stood that the carrying intd execution of this kind of labour
service will be hindered by many obstacles. The upper and
upper-middle classes will, on the other hand, make every
endeavour to evade this compulsory service, and on the other
hand, try by every means within their power to hinder such an
order. To arrange matters so that certain food products should
be obtained only on producing a corresponding entry in the
labour book, and that such products should not 'be distributed
in any other way, is not an easy matter. The rich who possess
money (and money means merely counters for obtaining pro-
ducts) have also a thousand possibilities of deceiving the Soviet
Government and duping the. workers and poorest peasantry.
These possibilities must be destroyed by a well-regulated
organisation for supplying products.
Of course labour service for the rich should only be a
transitory stage towards general labour service. The latter is
necessary not only because the productiveness of our trade and
agriculture can be increased by enlisting the service of all
members of society fit for work, but also because a strict
account of labour power and a proper distribution of such over
the various branches of production and the different under-
takings is necessary. Just as in war time it is necessary, on the
one hand, to mobilise all the forces, and on the other to keep
account of and properly organise them, so in the war with
economic disorganisation it is necessary to draw all the useful
sections of the population into the work, register and organise
 56

them into one great army of labour with a labour discipline and
a proper understanding of its duties.
At the present moment in Eussia, in consequence of the
economic disorganisation and shortage of raw material which
has been intensified by the occupation of South Eussia and
Ukraine by the forces of German Imperialism, there is a con-
siderable amount of unemployment. As a result we are faced
with the following situation we know that we can only win
:

through by the aid of human labour power, from the fact frliat
only labour can increase the productivity of our industry and
agriculture; and of this human labour power we have plenty.
But in spite of that there is no opportunity to apply this labour
power. There is already a large amount of unemployment as a
result of the shortage of fuel and raw materials. Where then
shall we place these people whom the Workers' and Peasants'
Government intends to compel to work? It is true that one
of the most important questions is the organisation of public
works and construction of such things of supreme social import-
ance as railways, grain elevators, and the opening of new mines.
But it is evident that this work could not at once absorb the
large surplus of labour that exists.
Thus it will be necessary from the very first to limit our-
selves to registering the working hands, noting their respective
compulsory service only at the request of the Soviet Govern-
ment, or working class bodies superintending the management
of production. Let us illustrate this by an example. Supposing
that for surveying new mines in Siberia engineering specialists
are required. The metallurgic department of the Soviet of
Public Economy puts forward a demand for such. The depart-
ment for registering labour power examines its lists and finds
the people who correspond to the kind required, and these are
then obliged to go where the above-mentioned departments
choose to send them.
Naturally, as the organisation of production becomes more
ordered, and the demand for labour increases, so will compul-
sory service be carried into effect; that is to say, all persons
capable of work will be compelled to do their share of work.
Compulsory labour service in itself is not a new idea. At
the present moment, in practically all the warring countries,
the Imperialist Governments have introduced labour service for
their population (in the first instance, of course, for the
 5?

oppressed classes). lint the Labour service introduced in

Western Kurope is as farremoved from that which ought to be
introduced by us as is heaven from earth. In the Imperialist
States such service means the complete subjugation of the
working class, its complete enslavement to financial capital and
the plundering iovernment
( And why is that ? Simply because
.

the workers do not govern themselves but are governed by

generals, hankers and big syndicalists and bourgeois politicians.
The worker there is a mere pawn in their hands. He is a serf
whom his master can dispose of as he pleases. No wonder that
compulsory service, in the West at the present time means a
new contribution, a new feudal levy, the institution of a new
system of military hard labour. Jt is introduced there for the
purpose of enabling the capitalists, whose pockets are being
filled by the labour of the workers, to carry on an interminable

plundering war.
Our workers themselves must, through their own organisa-
tions, introduce rtnd carry out compulsory labour-service on the
basis of selfgovernment by the workers. There is no bourgeoisie
over them here. On the contrary, the workers are now placed
over the bourgeoisie. Controlling, accounting, and distributing
labour power is now the concern of the workers' organisations,
and as compulsory labour service will affect the rural districts,
it will become the concern of the peasant Soviets, which will

stand over the village bourgeoisie, subjugating it to their rule.

All the organs dealing with labour will be purely workers'
if the administration of industry
organs. This is <jiiite natural :

is to become a. workers' administration, the management of

labour must also he in the hands o[ the workers, for that is only
part of the management or administration of production.
The working class, which wishes to take the lead in the
economic life country (and which will do so in spite of
of the
am obstacles^,
is becoming master
the class that of all the
wealth, is confronted with this main question the organisation
of production, The organisation of production demands in its
turn the solution of two principal problems: the organisation of
the means of production (accounting, controlling, and correct
distribution of fuel, raw material, machinery, instruments,
Is, etc.), and the organisation of labour (accounting, con-

trolling and correct distribution

of labour power). In order to
Utilise, thoroughly all the forces of society, compulsory labour
service, which will sooner or later be introduced by the working
 58

, is
indispensable. Idlers must vanish; only useful social
workers will remain.

CHAPTER XIII.

A SYSTEMATIC DISTRIBUTION OF PRODUCTS. THE

ABOLITION OF TRADE, PROFITS, AND SPECULATION.
CO-OPERATIVE COMMUNES.
It is impossible to take
possession of production properly
without taking control of the distribution of products. When
products are wrongly distributed there can be no proper pro-
duction. Supposing that the largest branches of industry are
nationalised. As we have seen above, one branch of production
works for another. To make production systematic it is neces-
sary that each branch should be supplied with as much material
as it requires; one enterprise getting more, another less. That
means that each product should be distributed regularly,
according to plan, in correspondence with the demands of the
branches in question. The various organs of supply, that is to
say, such working organisations as deal with distribution of
products, must be in direct communication with the organs
dealing with its production. Only then can the work of pro-
duction run smoothly.
But there are some products that are directly used by the
consumer. Such as bread, for instance, many food products, the
greater part of clothing materials, many india rubber products
(no factory buys goloshes, which enter into direct use of the
consumer), and so on. Here an equally strict account and a
just distribution of these products among the population is
necessary. And such a just distribution is absolutely impossible
without a definite plan being carried into execution. First, the
quantity of goods must be registered, then the demand for them,
and after that the products must be distributed according to
these calculations. The best instance of the necessity of an
organised plan is the food question, the question of bread. At
present the bourgeoisie, the village sweaters, the Right Social
Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks, the well-to-do land grabbing
peasants, have all raised a hue and cry about repealing the
bread monopoly, and that speculators, big and small, the whole-
sale dealers and m\ esochinki should be allowed to ran
(heir trade as they like. It is
easy to understand why (hf
tradesmen are interested in the repeal of the hread
monopoly;
in some way or another this monopoly hinders them from )'<

ing the consumer. On the other hand, it is quite clear that the
present state of things is absurd the rich calmly go on eating
:

white bread, buying it in smuggler fashion; that they have black

hread in plenty there is no question. They just pay considerably
more and get everything they want. Who helps them in this?
Tlu- speculators, of course. What they are anxious about is not
to Iced the population, but to grab a little more money, to stuff
a little more, into their pockets, and it is, of course, the rich,
not the poor, that can give more. That is why the speculators
bring bread not to those localities where it is most needed, but
to where they get paid most. And, so far, it has not been
possible to put an end to this. Hence it is clear that to organise
a systematic distribution of bread, the bread monopoly must be
left intact, as wll as the food committees and the hoards of

food, and further, this monopoly must be carried out in the

strictest manner, speculators must be dealt with without mercy,
private traders must be made to understand that they dare- not
make money out of a national calamity, disturbing the general
plan. The trouble at the present time is in the, fact that the
bread monopoly is imperfectly carried out, while contraband
private trading is thriving, and not in the fact that there is a
monopoly. And that, at a time when there is so little bread,
when the Germans have occupied the richest provinces; at a
time when in many places grain stored for seeds has been eaten
up, when the fields remain uncultivated and people arc starving!
Kvery piece of bread is precious, every pound of flour and grain
is priceless. And just for this very reason everything must be
strictly registered, so that not a crumb be wasted, and that all
the bread be distributed evenly, and that the rich should not be
privileged in any way. This, we
repeat, can be done and w ill
r

be attained the workers only set to work promptly, if they aid

if

the working organisers in their task, if they help to catch

speculators and cheats.
Unfortunately, there are quite a number of people not filled

The term "myesochnik" comes from a Russian word which

:
'
;

means a sack, and is applied to petty food speculators who carry

flc.ur, bread, etc., from the country into the towns in sacks.
 60

with class spirit, who make purchases at their owri risk inde-
pendently of the working organisations, thereby also increasing
the disorganisation of the general plan. Each one thinks to
'

himself : No matter what you say, I can mind my own

"
business best and off he goes to buy bread. Later on, con-
flicts are apt to arise on the
way, on account of this very bread,
and then he complains " They don't give you a chance to look
:

after yourself/' As a matter of fact the whole affair looks some-

what like this let us imagine a train going, packed full some
:
;

passengers are standing in the corridors, others lying on the

in a word there is not enough room to
floors
drop a pin. Then
all. of a sudden one man smells
" " something burning, raises a cry
of fire, and dashes like mad towards the door, pushing people
aside. The people, panic stricken, try to break open the door,
a wild scuffle ensues, they bite and hit each other, break one
another's ribs, trample children underfoot. The result is
dozens of killed, wounded, maimed. Is that right? It might
all have been quite different. If reasonable people had been
found to reassure the crowd, to calm it, everyone would have
walked out in order without a scratch !
Why did everything
happen in the way it did ? Because "
each one thought he will
:

act for himself, the others are no concern of mine." But in

the end it is he who gets his neck broken first.
The very same thing takes place with those who buy bread
independently, infringing the regulations of the workers' food
organisation. Each one thinks that he will make things easier
for himself. But what is the result? Every such purchase
upsets the systematic registering of the stock in hand owing to
:

these purchases the regular delivery of bread becomes impos-

sible. One locality, for instance, where there is absolute star-
vation, must have bread delivered at the expense of another,
where things are comparatively better. But, instead, some
people from the latter locality buy up all the bread and take ib
with them. The former locality is thus left to starve to death.
What follows ? As the organised public purchases have become
disorganised there appears on the scene the marauding specu-
lator. He at once begins to try his hand at private purchases.
In this manner the unintelligent poor, lacking in class conscious-
ness, not understanding things themselves, aid and abet the
vampire speculator, whose real place is on the gallows. Now
we can understand why these speculating gentry exploit the
natural dissatisfaction of the hungry against the Soviet Govern-
 Cl

ment, and why the greatest scoundrels and sweaters often stand
at the head of risings against the Soviets in small provincial
towns. Workers should understand once and for all that salva-
tion is not to be attained by a return to the old order, but by
ways which lead forward towards the destruction of speculation
towards the annihilation of private trade, towards the social
distribution of products by the workers' organisations.
The same holds good concerning a whole series of other
products. The working class ought not to suffer in order that
the rich may get everything for extra prices, but, on the con-
trary, must put an end to the profiteering speculators who, like
the hungry ravens, come flocking from -all directions. A just,
regulated distribution of products, on the basis of registering
the demands and reserves, is one of the fundamental tasks con-
fronting the working class. What does this mean? It means
the nationalisation of trading, that is, in other words, the
abolition of trading, for the transition to social distribution can-
not exist side by side with dealers and agents who live like
parasites and completely upset the work of supply. Not back
" " "
to free private trading," that is to say,' to free robbery,
but towards an exact, regulated distribution of products by
workers' organisations this should be the watchword of the
intelligent workers.
In order to execute this plan more .successfully a
compulsory union of the whole population into co-opera-
tive communes must be aimed at. Only then can products be
when the population that is to get them is
justly distributed,
united and organised into large groups, whose demands can be
exactly estimated. If the population, instead of being united
and organised, is scattered, it becomes extremely difficult to
carry out this distribution in a more or less orderly way it is;

difficult to calculate how much of each article is needed, what

and how much is to be delivered, and through what
agency the distribution is to be effected. Let us imagine that
the population is united into co-operative communes according
to their parishes. Every town or parish, say, is united into one
co-operation which is in its turn united with the house com-
mittees. Then a given product is first distributed to such com-
munes, and these, having calculated beforehand what product
and of what quality they require, they distribute it through
their agents, amongst the different consumers.
In uniting the population into such co-operative communes
 62

the already existing co-operative societies will be of great-

importance. The wider the sphere of work of the co-operatives,
the wider the circle of the population included, the more
organ-
ised will the distribution of products become, and the more
frequently will these co-operatives be changed into organs of
supply for the whole population. Compulsory communes sur-
round already existing co-operatives such, in all probability, will
;

be the most convenient form of the organisation of distribution,

by the aid of which it will be ultimately possible to supplant
trade and do away once and for ever with private profit.
To make the task of a regular distribution of products still
we must aim at changing our private system of domestic
easier,
economy into a social one. At present every family has its own
kitchen, every family, independently of others, buys provisions,
dooming woman to slavery, turning her into an eternal cook
who sees nothing from dawn till night except kitchen utensils,
brushes, dusters, and all kinds of refuse. An immense amount
of labour is absolutely wasted. If we united and organised
housekeeping, beginning with the supply and preparation of
food (by means of joint purchase of provisions, joint cooking,
construction of large model restaurants, etc.), it would be much
easier to keep an account of the demands of various households,
and besides the saving of money thus effected, the regular
general distribution would .be greatly assisted.
One of the most vital questions for the consumer, and a
very painful one for the town labourers, is the housing question.
The pooj; are here me_rcilessl^L_e.x,plQited. And on the other hand
landlords use'cTto make h ftaps, jpf_mQne v on the business. The
.

expropriation of this kind of property, a transfer of houses and

of various kinds of residential premises, their registering and the
regular distribution of flats and rooms, the transfer of this work
into the hands of the local workers' committee and of the organs
of the Soviet Government is a difficult but grateful task. We
have had enough of the lording of the better classes !The
worker, the poor toiler, has also a right to a warm room and to
a living as befits a human being.
In this way must economic life gradually be organised. The
working class must organise production. The working class
must organise distribution. The working class to organise con-
sumption food, clothes, and housing there is an account kept
of everything, everything is distributed in the most reasonable
 68

\\ ay. There are no mastersthere is ihe self administration of

the \vorkiii' r
class.

CHAPTER XIV.
LABOUR DISCIPLINE OF THE WORKING CLASS AND
THE POOREST ELEMENTS OF THE PEASANTRY.
To organise production so that life should be possible with-
out masters, to organise it on a fraternal basis, is a very good
thing, but it is easier said than done. We meet with number-
difficulties in the first place we are now standing face to
:

face with the heritage of the unfortunate war a ruined country.

The working class, is now obliged to clear up the mess made by
Nicholas Romanoff and his servants Sturmer, Sukhomlinoff,
Protoppopoff, a mess which was later increased by Gutchkoff
and Rodzianko with their servants Kerensky, Tzeretelli, Dan,
and the rest of the treacherous company. Secondly, the work-
ing class are now compelled to organise production whilst repel-
ling the blows of their greatest enemies; on the other hand,
those who are attacking them with savage hatred from without,
as well as those who are attempting to destroy the Workers'
Government from within.
In order to emerge victorious under such conditions, to
conquer once and for ever, the workers must struggle against
their own inertia. Whilst organising a labour army, it is at the
same time imperative to create a revolutionary labour discipline
in this army. The fact of the matter is that there are still such
individuals the workers who do not yet believe that they
among
have now become masters of the situation. We
want them to
understand that at the present time the State Exchequer
belongs to the workers and the peasants; the factories are
national factories, the land is the land of the people, forests,
machinery, mines, factory plant, houses, everything has been
transferred into the hands of the working class. The adminis-
tration over all this is a workers' administration. The attitude
of the workers and peasants towards all this wealth cannot now
be the same as it was before before it belonged to the masters,
;

now all this wealth belongs to the people. The masters used to
sweat the workers to the utmost. The landowner who lived
like a lord fleeced the poor peasant and farm labourer as bare
as he could. Both the worker and the farm labourer were there-
 64
t

fore right when they did not consider themselves bound to dc

their best under the master's whip, for the sake of
strengthening
the might and power of their tormentors. This is
be no question whatever of a labour
why there can
discipline when the whip
of the capitalist is brandished over the
workmen's head and
the whip of the landowner over that of the
peasant and farm
labourer. Things are quite different now. These whips have
now been destroyed. The working class is now
working for
itself, it is now not making money for the
capitalists, but work-
ing in the people's cause, in the cause of the toiling masses which
were previously held in bondage.
But nevertheless, we repeat, there still are workers lacking
class spirit who do not seem to see all this.
Why is that'?
Because they have been slaves too long. Slavish servile
thoughts
ever crowd in their brain.
Perhaps they think, at the bottom oi
their hearts, that they cannot
possibly exist without God and a
master. And consequently they use the revolution to their own
ends, trying to fill their pockets, to grasp where they can, and
what they can, never stopping to think of their labour duties
nor of the fact that slovenliness and cheating at work at
present
is a crime against the
working class. For labour does not now
serve to enrich a master; labour now supports the workers
the poverty-stricken classes who are now at the helm of State.
The indifferent workman now does not injure' directors or
bankers, but members of workers' administrations, workers'
unions, and the Government of the workers and peasants. To
handle machinery carelessly, to break tools, to try and get little
work done in the ordinary working hours for the purpose of
working overtime and receiving double pay by all this it is not
the master who is cheated, it is not the capitalist who is harmed,
but the working class as a whole. The same thing applies to the
land. He who steals farming implements which have been
registered by the farm labourers and peasants, robs society and
not the landowner, who has been driven out a long time ago.
The man who cuts down timber despite the prohibition of the
peasants' organisations is thereby robbing the poor. 'Any man
who, instead of cultivating the land taken from the landowner,
is engaged in bread speculation or secret distilling, is a cheat
and a criminal against the workers and peasants.
Now it is quite evident to everyone that, for setting in order
and organising production, it is necessary for the workers to
organise themselves and create their own labour discipline. At
the factories and works the workers must themselves see t<> it
that every comrade should turn out as nmeli as is required.
Professional workers' unions and tin Soviets of the worker-
1

in direct supervision of production. They may, when possible,

shorten the working day, and we mean to aim at such excellent
organisation of production as to make it possible for each set
of workmen to work only six instead of eight hours. But tl
very same workers' organisations, as well as the workers'
(iovernment and the working class as a whole, may and should
expect of their members the most careful handling of national
wealth and the most conscientious devotion to their work. The
workers' organisations, especially labour unions, should them-
selves fix the average output, that is to say, the amount of work
that must be performed by every workman during one working
day he who does not execute the required quantity, allowance
:

of course being made for sickness and weakness, is sabotaging,

undermining the work of constructing a new social order, and
hinders the working class in its progress towards perfect Com-
munism.
a \ast machine, every part of which must be
Pj^luction is

inj)ert'ect other, all working equally well. An

harmony with the
imperfect tool in the hands of a good wdrTorian is worthless, and
so is a good tool in the hands of an inefficient one. .What we
want is a good tool and a good workman.
Therefore we should strain our powers to the utmost to
organist the supply of fuel and raw material, to organise trans-
port and to distribute this fuel and raw material properly, at
the same time taking measures for self-discipline and a proper
training of the working masses to conscientious labour.
It is more difficult to do this in Russia than in any other
country. Tin; working class (and this applies in a still greater
degree to the peasant r\ have not gone through a long stage of
)

organised training as the Western European and American

workers have. We have among our number many workers who
are only just becoming workers, who are only just getting
accustomed to collective social work, who are only now learning
" "
that to say other people's business is no concern of mine
is not the proper sentiment for a workman to express. This kind
of workman will always tend to disturb the harmony of social
labour. The more we have of the kind who still nurse the idea
of becoming their own masters, of saving a little money and
starting a shop, the harder will be our task of carrying through
 66

real labour discipline. But for this

very reason must those in
the vanguard of the revolution, pioneers and labour
organisa-
tions, grow more and more
determined to establish and
strengthen such discipline. If this is a success it will become
possible to organise everything else and for the working class
to emerge victorious out of the difficulties created by the war,
by disorganisation and sabotage, and all the barbarity and
atrocities of the capitalist order.

CHAPTER XV,
THE END OF THE POWER OF MONEY.
"
STATE FINANCES " AND FINANCIAL ECONOMY IN
THE SOVIET EEPUBLIC.
Money at the present time represents the means of obtain-
ing goods. Thus those who have much money can buy many
things ; they are rich. However low the rate of money falls, it
is always easier to live for the man who has much of it. The
rich classes who even now have an abundance of money can
live at their ease. In towns, traders, merchants, capitalists and
" "
speculators: in the country the kulaks (rich peasants), the
sharks and sweaters who have fattened on the war to an in-
credible degree, having saved hundreds of thousands of roubles.
Things have reached such a pitch that some buried their money
in the ground in boxes or glass jars.
The workers' and peasants' State, on the other hand, is in
need of money. Additional issues of paper money depreciates
its value : the more paper money is printed the cheaper it gets.
And yet the works and factories must be maintained by these
paper tokens workers must be paid, the administration must
;

be kept going, the employees must get their wages. Where is

the money to come from? To get the money it is necessary
first of all to tax the rich. An income and property tax, that is
to say, a tax on big profits and on large property, must.be the
principal tax a tax on the rich, a tax on those who receive a
;

surplus income.
But at the present time, when everybody is living through
a revolutionary fever, when it is difficult to arrange for the
regular imposition of taxes, any means of obtaining money is
reasonable and admissible. For instance, the following is quite
 07

an excellent measure. The Government deelares that Up to

aj
etrtain date all money must be exchanged for nc;\v, and that
thej
old money has lost its value. That means that everybody
must^
empty his boxes and jars and cupboards and bring his hoard
to the hank to be exchanged. And here the following system
should he carried out; the savings of poor people must be un-
touched, a new rouble being paid for every old one but begin-
;

ning with a certain sum a part must be deducted for the benefit
of the State. And the larger the amount of money saved up,
the greater will be the sum retained. Let us propose the fol-
lowing scheme: up to 5000 the exchange is to be a rouble for
a rouble of the following 5000 a tenth part is deducted from
; ;

the third 5000 a seventh part; from the fourth a fourth part;
fiom the fifth a half; from the sixth three-quarters; and be-
ginning with a definite sum, the whole is confiscated.
Thus the power of the rich would be considerably under-
mined, additional means for the needs of the Workers' State
would be obtained, and everybody would be more or less equal-
ised with regard to income.
In a time of revolution the imposition of contributions on
the bourgeoisie is justifiable. It is certainly not at all advisable
for one local Soviet to tax the bourgeoisie according to one

system, whilst the other does so in accordance with- another

system, and a third according to a third. This would be as bad
as it there were varying forms of levying taxes in a given locality.
We must strive towards a uniform system of taxation, suit-
able for the whole Soviet Eepublic. But if in the meantime we
have not been able to build up such machinery, contributions
"
are admissible. There is a Russian proverb which says When
:

you can't get fish, a lobster will do." Wemust bear in mind
that the duty ojt^fe party and of the Soviets, as well as that of
the working class and the poorest peasantry, consists in uniting
and centralising on one definite plan, the collection of taxes,
thereby systematically driving the bourgeoisie out of their
economic stronghold.
We must, however, note that the more successful the
organisation of production on new labour principles, the more
will the importance of money decrease. Formerly, when pri-
vate enterprises were the dominating institution, these private
enterprises sold their goods to one another. The tendency now
is for various branches of industry to unite and become different

departments of general social production. Products may be

 (58

exchanged between the different departments simply by a pro-

cess of book-keeping without the need of
using money at all.
This method is actually in process between the different
branches of capitalistic trusts or combines.
Combined enterprises are those which embrace several
varying branches of production. In America, for instance, there
arc
enterprises
which own metal works, coal mines, iron mines,
and steamship companies. One branch of the enterprise sup-
plies the other with raw materials or transports its manufactured
products. 13ut all these separate branches represent but parts
of one enterprise. It is, of course, understood that one
part
does not sell its products to another branch of the enterprise,
but distributes it according to the orders of the central head
office of the various departments. Or let us take another
'example : the works of one department transfer the half-
finished product to another, yet within the works no kind of
purchase and sale transaction takes place. The same sort of
thing will be established in the general plan of production. The
main branches of production will be organised into huge social
enterprises under the management of the workers. A systematic
distribution of the necessary means of production will take place
between the different branches this will include fuel, raw
;

materials, half-finished products, auxiliary materials, and so on.

And that will mean that money will lose its importance. Money
is important only when production is unorganised; the more

organised it becomes the smaller becomes the part played by

money, and the need for it gradually decreases.
What about the workers' pay? we shall be asked. The
same thing will hold good here. The better production is
organised by the working class, the less will social workmen be
paid in money and the more they will be paid in kind, that is
to say, in products. Wehave already spoken of co-operative
emu in uncs and of labour registers. Products required by
workers will be issued without any money whatever, simply
upon the evidence that such an such a man has worked and is
working; they will be given out by the co-operative -stores in
accordance with such entries in the labour registers. This, of
course, cannot be organised all at once. It will be long before
we arc, able to organise this into proper working order. It is a
new plan that has never been worked before, and is therefore
exceptionally difficult to carry out. But one thing is clear
:in

proportion as the workers come into possession of production

 f>9

and distribution, tin- need for money \\ill become less ;md )

and subsequently will gradually die out altogether.

An " exchange " of goods must then begin between town
and country, without tin- agenc\ of mone\ municipal industrial
;

organisations send out textile, iron and other goods into the
country, while the village district organisations send bread to
the towns in exchange. Here, too, the import-unco of money
will ho lessened in proportion as the town and country labour
organisations of the workers and peasants become more closely
united.
lint at present, at this very moment, the workers'
(iovern-
ment needs money, and needs badly.
it That is because the
organisations of production and distribution is only just getting
into working order, and money still plays a most important part.
Finances, including income and expenditure of State money,
are at present of the utmost importance. And that is why the
question of taxes is so acute at the present time they must be
;

exacted by every means. The confiscation of surplus incomes

of the town and country bourgeoisie is inevitable, as is also
periodical taxation.
But in the future taxation will also become obsolete. To
the extent that production becomes nationalised, so capitalists'
profits cease as there are no more landowners, the "so-called
;

land tax is abolished. Property holders are deprived of their

houses, and thus another source of taxation is gone. Super-
fluous weal tli is confiscated, the rich are losing their main sup-
port, and the whole population is gradually becoming employed
by the proletarian State organisations. (Latex on, with com-
plete Communism, when there is no State, people, as we have
seen, will become equal comrades, and the very memory of the
division of society into bourgeoisie will vanish.)
When such a state of things exists it will be much simpler
to deduct the necessary taxes immediately from salaries than
to deduct considerable sums in the way of taxes or dues. It is
not worth while spending both time and money on the senseless
transaction of giving with one hand and taking away with the
other.
We have seen, on the other hand, that when production
and distribution are thoroughly organised, money will play no
part whatever, and as a matter of course no kind of money dues
will be demanded from anyone. Money will have generally
become unnecessarv. finance will become extinct.
 70

We repeat that that time is a long way off yet. There can
be no talk of it in the near future. For the
present we must
find means for public finance. But we are
already taking steps
leading to the abolition of the money system. Society is being
transformed into one huge labour organisation or to
company
produce and distribute what is already produced without the
agency of gold coinage or paper money. The end of the power
of money is imminent.

CHAPTER XVI.
NO TRADE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE RUS-
SIAN BOURGEOISIE AND FOREIGN IMPERIALISTS.
(NATIONALISATION OF FOREIGN TRADE.)
At the present time every country is surrounded
by other
countries on which it depends to a considerable extent. It is
very difficult for a country to manage without foreign trade,
because one country produces more of one product than an-
other, and vice versa. Blockaded Germany is now
experiencing
how hard it is to do without a supply from other countries. And
should England, for instance, be surrounded by as close a
ring
as is Germany, it would have perished long ago. The Russian
industry, nationalised by the working class, cannot possibly
dispense with certain goods from abroad, and on the other
hand, foreign co"urTEnes," especially "Germany, are badly in need
of raw material. We must not forget even for a minute that
we live in the midst, _pf rapacious capitalist States. Naturally
L
enough these plundering States^wuT try to obtain everything
I that they require to further their aims of plunder. And the
\jRussian bourgeoisie, that has been so hedged in and persecuted
in Russia, will be very glad to enter into direct contact with
foreign imperialists. There is no doubt whatever that the
foreign bourgeoisie could pay the Russian speculators even
more than does our own home-made, true-Russian patriotic
.bourgeoisie. A
speculator, as we know, sells to him who pays
the most. And so we have only to give our bourgeois the chance
of exporting goods abroad, and foreign plunderers the possibility
of arranging their little business affairs here, and the Socialist
Soviet Republic would have little cause to rejoice at the results.
Formerly, when the question of foreign trade arose, the
discussion confined itself to two points; whether high import
duties on foreign goods were necessarx or whether
they should
be abolished altogct her ;that is to say, Protection or l-'n-i-
Trade. During the last \ears of the reign of capital, capitalists
were very active in carr\ ing out the policy of .Protection.
Thanks to this the syndicalists received additional profit.
J laving no
competitors or rivals within the country, they were
the monopolists of the home market, the high wall of 'import
duties protected them from foreign competitors. In this way,
by tlie aid of high duties, the syndicalists, that is the biggest
sharks of capital, could fleece iheir countrymen shamelessly.
Making use of this double extortion of their countrymen, the
1

syndicalists began to export goods abroad at extremely cheap

prices in order to displace or remove their rival syndicalists of
other countries from their path. Naturally these cheap prices
wen- only temporary. As soon as they had removed their rivals
they immediately raised the prices in the newly-conquered
markets. It was in order to carry out this
policy that they
required high customs tariffs. In raising a cry about the
defence of industry the syndicalists were really clamouring for
a means of attack, for means of economic conquest of foreign
markets. And as always happens in such cases, these profes-
sional impostors on the people were disguising their plunder by
a pretence of guarding the national interests.
A few Socialists seeing this, put forward the demand for
Free Trade between the different countries. That would have
meant everything being left to the chances of a free economic
struggle between individual bourgeoisie. But this war cry was
left to hover in mid-air; it was simply of no use to anybody.
.For what syndicalist would reject a proposition of additional

profit'.' And since he received this additional profit only owing

feo his being immune from foreign competition thanks to the
high customs .tariff, how do you expect this syndicalist to reject
such high duties? First of all it is imperative to overthrow the
syndicalists. Our h'rst object is a Socialist Revolution. This
is how the question was answered by true Socialists, by Com-
munist Bolsheviks, as we now call them. And a Socialist
Revolution means the institution of such an order where every
thing is in the hands of an organised State of the working class.
We have seen what harm private trade causes within the
country the harm done by tin's kind of trade between different
:

countries is not less. In other words, abolishing Free Trade

within the country whilst establishing it abroad is sheer non-
PL'
Equally absurd, from the point of view of the working
use.
class, is the system of taxation of foreign capitalists. A third
way out is wanted, and this consists in the nationalisation of
foreign trade by the proletarian State.
What does this mean? It means that no one who lives
upon Russian soil has a right to make business agreements with
foreign capitalists. If anyone is caught at it, he should be fined
or imprisoned. The whole of the foreign trade is carried on
by
the Workers' and Peasants' (Jovernment. The latter carries
out all transactions whenever occasion arises. Supposing
American machines are being offered in exchange for certain
goods or for a certain amount of money or gold, whilst some
Germans offer the same machines at a different price and on
different terms. The workers' organisations (Government
Soviet organisations) consider whether it is necessary to make
the purchase and of whom it should be more advantageous to
buy. In accordance with their decision the machines are bought
iu the place, and upon terms which are the most profitable.
Products bought in this manner are distributed to the popula-
tion without any profits being made out of them, because the
transaction is carried out not by capitalists to make money out
of the workers, but by the workers themselves. In this manner
the domination of capital would be abolished in this department
as well. The workers must take the business of foreign trade
(as they have done and are doing) into their own hands and
organise it so that not a single swindler or speculator or shop-
keeper should be able to evade the workers' watchfulness.
It is clearly understood that capitalist smugglers should be
dealt with mercilessly. They should be made to forget all their
tricks. The management of economic life is at present the
business of the working class. "It is only by the aid of a further
strengthening of this order that the working class can attain
its final liberation from the remnants of the accursed capitalist
order. o -

CHAPTER XVII.
SPIRITUAL LIBERATION THE NEXT STEP TO
ECONOMIC LIBERATION.
(THE CHriiril AND TIIK SCHOOL TN THE
SOYIKT REPUBLIO-
The working class and its party, tin- party o| (

Bolsheviks, are stru< "1in

r
not nnlv lor economic freedom bid
 73

also fur spiritual lik-rat ion of the toiling masses, Kconomic

liberation itself will in- Hit- easier attained the aflkmer the work-
man :ml tin- farm labourer get their brains cleared nf all the
rubbish with which the landowners and the mannfact uring
bourgeoisie have stuffed them. \Ye have already noticed }>
how cleverly the dominating classes have hitherto hound the
workers with their newspapers, journals, pamphlets, pn<
and even tlie school, which they cleverly converted from an
organ of enlightenment into an institution for dulling the minds
of the people.
One of the agencies in achieving this object was the belief
in God and the Devil, spirits good and evil (angels and saints),
in short, in religion. A great nnmher of people have grown
accustomed to helieve in all this, whilst if we analyse these
ideas and try to understand the origin of religion and why it is
so strongly supported by the hourgeoisie, it will become clear
that the real significance of religion is that it is a poison
which is still being instilled into the people. It will also become
clear why the party of the Communists is a strong antagonist
of religion.
Modern science has proved that the original form of religion
was the worship of the souls of dead ancestors. This worship
began at a time when the so-called riders that js to say, the
richer,more experienced and wise old men of tin- trihe who
already had some power over the rest, had attained great
importance. In the early stages of human history, when men
were living in herds, like semi-apes, people were indeed
still

equal. It was only later on that elders or heads of trihes began

to have command over the whole tribe: they were the first to
b:
worshipped. The worship of the spirits of the dead rich
this the basis of religion: and these "sacred" idols were
is

later on changed into a terrible (!od who punishes and forgives,

judges and governs. Let us analyse why people have come to
accept such an explanation of everything that takes place
around them. The reason is that pei.ple judge of things that
are little known to them b\ comparing them with things with
which they ar,- familiar: they weigh and measure things on a
scale that is concrete and comprehensible A well-known
1
.

scholar quotes the following instance. A little girl, brought up

.

on a private estate \\here there was a poultry farm, constantly

had to do with eggs: eggs were ever present before her eyes.
Once, when she saw the sky strewn with stars, she told a story
 74

of how the heavens were sprinkled with a vastnumber of eggs.

Such instances may be quoted endlessly. The same thing holds
true as regards religion. People saw that there are those who
obey and those who are obeyed. They constantly witnessed the
following picture the elder (and later on the prince) sur-
rounded by his followers, more experienced, wiser, stronger and
richer than the others, 'orders others and
reigns over them : the
others act according to his wish he is obeyed by all
:
.

This kind of thing witnessed daily and hourly appeared to

explain all that takes place in the world. There is on the earth,
they said, one commander and those who obey him. Conse-
quently, they reasoned, the whole world is built up on the same
scheme. There is a master of the world, a great, strong, terrible
master upon whom everything is dependent, and who punishes
his servants severely for disobedience. This master over the
world is God. And so the idea of a god in the heavens arises
only in those cases when people are accustomed to the power of
the elders over the tribe.
It is an interesting fact that all the names given to God
confirm the same origin of religion. The Russian words for God
and for rich are of the same origin; thus " Bog " (God) and
" "
Bogat (rich) are derived from the same root. God is great,
powerful, and rich. God is called Lord or Master. What does
'Lord" signify but the contrary to servant or slave? In
prayers we" have: "We are thy servants." God is further
called the Heavenly King." All the other titles point in the
same direction: "sovereign," "ruler," and so on. And so,
"
what does God " really mean? It means, as we are told, a
"
rich, strong master, a slave owner, a heavenly king," a judge
in short, an exact copy, a reproduction of the earthly power
of the elders, and later on of the princes. When the Jews were
governed by their princes, who punished and tortured them,
there arose the teaching of a cruel and terrible God. Such is
the God of the Old Testament. He is a vicious old man, who
chastises his subjects severely. Let us now consider the God
of the Greek Orthodox Church. The teachings concerning this
god arose in Byzantium, in the country which served as a model
of despotism. At the head stood a despotic monarch surrounded
by his ministers; -these, in their turn, were surrounded by high
officials; next followed a whole host of avaricious officials. The
Greek orthodox religion is an exact model of this system. The
" "
Heavenly King sits above. Around him are gathered the
 7r>

most important saints (for instance, Saint Nicholas, the Holy

Virgin, s<>met hing after the style of an empress, the wife of the
Jloly Ghost), these are ministers: next comes a hierarchy of
angels and saints in the order of officials in a despotic govern-
"
iii. -nt. These are the so-called ranks of angels and arch-
" " "
angels cherubs, seraphs heralds and various other
:
ranks
" " "
or offices." The word rank itself shows that we have to
" " "
do with officials (" rank and official are words which have
tin- same root in the "Russian
" "
language). These ranks are
represented on images in such a way as to show that he who
stands higher in rank is better dressed, has more laurels, that
"
is to say, lie has more orders," just the same as on our sinful
"
earth. In a despotic State the official invariably demands a
bribe," else he will do nothing for you; and just in the same
way it is necessary to light a candle before the image of the
saint or he will get angry and not deliver your message to the
highest official to God. In a despotic State there are special
officials whose express mission is to act as intercessors, for a
bribe," of course. Here in the orthodox religion there are
"
also special saints intercessors," or intermediaries, especi-
ally women. For instance, the Holy Virgin is, so to speak, a
"
professional female intercessor." Of course, she does not
perform her services free of charge; she expects to have more
churches built in her name than anyone else,' and a great
number of surplices have to be bought for her images, orna-
mented with precious stones, and so on.
In short, we see that the belief in God is a reflection of the
commonest everyday relations: it is the belief in slavery, which
people are made to believe exists not only on the earth, but in
the whole universe. We
understand, of course, that in reality
there is nothing of the kind; and it is' clear to everybody that
such legends hinder the development of humanity. The pro-
gress of Man is possible only when he finds natural explanations
for all phenomena. But when, instead of a logical reason,
people invent a god or saints or demons or devils, then, of course,
we can expect nothing sensible. Here are a few more instances.
Some religions people believe that thunder is caused by the
Prophet Elijah taking a ride in his chariot and therefore, when
;

they hear thunder they take off their hats and make the sign of
the cross. In reality this electricity which causes thunder is
perfectly well known to science, and by this same power we run
ti -arris and carry on them many things we de.sire. A logical \\r\e
 76

of reasoning shows us that we can convey manure with the aid

"
of the Prophet Elijah," and that he makes a good carman.
Let us suppose that we believed in the Prophet Elijah version.
In that case we should never have invented tramcars. That
means that, owing to religion, we should for ever have remained
in a state of "barbarism. Another instance. War breaks out,
people perish in millions, oceans of blood are shed. A reason
explaining this must be found. Those who do not believe in
God think, reason, and analyse they see that the war was
;

started by Tzars and Presidents, by the rich bourgeoisie and

landowners they see that war is conducted for plundering pur-
;

poses and for filthy

"
aims-; and therefore they say to the workers
of all countries, To arms against your oppressors!" " Down
with capital !" We see quite a different attitude in the case of
a religious man. Sighing like an old woman, he reasons as
follows: "God is punishing us for our sins. Lord, our
heavenly father ! Thou art chastising us justly for our trans-
gressions." And if he is very pious, and Greek Orthodox into
the bargain, he makes it a point to use one particular kind of
food on definite days (this is called fasting), to beat his forehead
against stone floors (this is called penance), and to perform a
thousand other idiotic things. Equally foolish things are done
by the religious Jew, the Moslem Turk, the Buddhist Chinese,
in a word by everyone who believes in God. Hence it follows
that really religious people are incapable of fighting. Religion,
as we have shown, not only leaves people in a state of barbarism,
but helps to leave them in a state of slavery. A religious man
is more inclined to suffer anything that happens resignedly (for
" "
everything, as they believe, comes from God (" from on
high ') he considers himself bound to submit
'

;
to the authorities
and to suffer, for which he will be repaid a hundredfold in the
life to come. Little wonder, then, that the dominant classes in
capitalist States look upon religion as a very useful tool for
deceiving and stultifying the people.
At the beginning of the chapter we saw that the power of
the bourgeoisie is sustained not only by bayonets but also by
dulling .the brains of the slaves. We
also saw that the bour-
geoisie poisons the minds of its subjects on an organised plan.
For this purpose there is a special organisation, namely, the
Church organised by the State. In nearly all capitalist countries
the church is just as much a State institution as is the police ;

and the priest is n,s much a State official as is the executioner!

 77

the gendarme, the detective. He receives a Government salary

for administering his poison to the masses. This is the most
dangerous part of the whole affair. Were it not for this mon-
stroush firm and strong organisation the plundering capi-
!'

would be no room for a single priest. Their

talist State, there

bankruptcy would be swift enough. But the trouble is that the

bourgeois States support the whole church institution, which
in return staunchly supports the bourgeois Government. At
the time of the T/ar the Ifussian priests not only deceived the
masses, but even made use of the confessional to find out what,
ideas or intentions their victims entertained towards the Govern
nil-lit
; they acted as spies while discharging their "sacred
duties." Tin* Government not only supported them, but even
persecuted" by imprisonment and exile and all other means, all
"
so-called blasphemers of the Greek Orthodox Church.
All these considerations explain the programme of the
Communists with regard to their attitude to religion and to the
I hurch. Religion must be fought, if not by violence, at all
events by argument. The Church must be separated from the
State. That means that the priests may remain, but should be
maintained by those who wish to accept their poison from them
or by those who are interested in their existence. There is a
poison called opium when that is smoked, sweet visions appear
; ;

you feel as if you were in paradise. But its action tells on the
health of the smoker. His health is gradually ruined, and little
by little he becomes a meek idiot. The same applies to religion.
There are people who wish to smoke opium; but it would be
absurd if the State maintained at its expense, that is to say,
at the expense of the people, opium dens and special men to
serve them. For this reason the Church must be (and already is)
treated in the same way :
priests, bishops, archbishops, patri-
archs, abbots and the rest of the lot must be refused State
maintenance. Let the believers, if they wish it, feed the holy
fathers at their own expense on the fat of the land, a thing which
they, the priests, greatly appreciate.
On the other hand, freedom of thought must be guaran-
teed. Hence the axiom that religion is a private affair. This
does not mean that we should not struggle against it by freedom
of argument. It means that the State should 'support no church

nr;;anisatiun. As regards this question, the programme of the

Bolshevik Communists has been carried out all over Russia.
Priests of all creeds have been deprived of State subsidy. And
 78

that is the reason why they have become so furious and have
twice anathematised the present Government, i.e., the Govern-
ment of the workers, by excommunicating all workers from the
church. We must note this. At the time of the Tsar they knew
well enough the text in the Scripture which "
says, There is no
power but from God," and "The powers that be are to be
obeyed.' They willingly sprinkled executioners with holy
water. But why have they forgotten these texts at a time when
the workers are at the head of the Government ? Is it
possible
that the will of God does not hold good when there is a Com-
munist Government? What can the reason be? The
thing is
very simple. The Soviet Government is the first Government
clergy. And this, by the
in Russia to attack the pockets of the
way, is a priest's most sensitive spot. The clergy are now in the
camp of the "oppressed bourgeoisie." They are working
secretly and openly against the working class. But times have
changed, and the masses of the labouring class are not so prone
to become the easy prey to deceit they were before. Such is the
great educational significance of the Revolution revolution
;

liberates us from economic slavery, but it also frees us from

spiritual bondage.
There is another vital question concerning the mental edu-
cation of the masses. It is the question of the school.
At the time of the domination of the bourgeoisie the school
served more as an organ of educating the masses in a spirit
of submission to the bourgeoisie than as a medium of real
education. All primers and other appurtenances of study were
permeated w ith the spirit of slavery. Especially was this the
r

case with history books. These did nothing but lie in describing
the feats of the Tsars and other crowned scoundrels. Next to
these, an important part in the schools was played by the
clergy. Everything aimed at one object : to mould the child so
that it should emerge not a citizen but a subject, a slave, capable
if the occasion requires to kill his fellow-men should rise
Jjhey
against the capitalist Government. Schools were divided into
grades there were schools for the common people and others
;

for the better classes. For the latter there were colleges and
universities, where the sons of the bourgeoisie were taught
various sciences with the final object of teaching them how to
manage and subjugate the rabble; for the rabble there was the
lower school. In these, more than in the others, was the influ-
ence of the clergy predominant. The object of this school, that
gave \ery little knowledge but taught the children a great deal
of religious lies, was to prepare people to suffer, obey, and be
resignedly submissive to the better classes. The eoinnion people,
had no access whatever to the higher schools, that is to the
universities, the social higher technical schools, and various
other institutions. And thus an educational monopoly was
created. Only the rich or those supported b\ tho rich could
enjoy a more or less decent education. For these reasons tin-
intellectuals utilised their position in a very clever manner.
And, of course, at the time of the October Revolution they were
against the workers; they scented danger of their privileges and
rights vanishing
"
if
everybody had the right to study, and if the
V rabble were given the possibility of acquiring knowledge.
]t is therefore necessary in the very first place to make
education general and compulsory. In order to construct life
on new principles it is necessary that a man should be accus-
tomed from childhood to honest toil. For this purpose school
children should be taught all kinds of manual labour in the
schools. Tin- doors of the high schools should be open to all.
The priests should be turned out of the schools; let them, if
they wish to, fool the children anywhere they like, but not in a
(loverninent institution: schools should be secular and not
religious. The organs of the local government of the workers
have control over the schools, and should not be parsimonious
where public instruction and the supply of all the requisites for
successful teaching for boys and girls is concerned. At present
in some of the villages and provincial towns, some idiotic school-
" '' " "
masters, aided by the kulaks (or rather the kulaks aided
by these idiots) are carrying on a propaganda, saying that the
Bolsheviks are aiming at destroying science, abolishing educa-
tion, and so on. This is, of course, a most despicable lie. The
Communist Bolsheviks have quite different intentions; they
wish to liberate science from the yoke of capitalism, and to make-
all science accessible to the
labouring masses. They wish to
destroy the monopoly (exclusive right) of the rich to education.
This is the true foundation of the matter: and it is no wonder
that the rich are afra'id of losing one of their chief supports. If
every workman acquires the qualifications of an engineer, then
the position of the capitalist and of the rich engineer is not
worth a brass farthing. They will have nothing more to boast
of, for there will be many such as they. No undermining of the
workers' cause, no amount of sabotage by the old servants of
 80

capital will be of any avail. And that is what the right honour-
able bourgeoisie is afraid of.
Culture for the bourgeoisie, spiritual subjection for the poor
these are the capitalists' war cries. Culture for all, liberation
of the mind from the yoke of capital this is the watchword of
the party of the working class, the party of the Communists.

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE PEOPLE ARMED TO DEFEND THEIE GAINS.

(ARMY OF THE SOVIET REPUBLIC.)
'

-The best guarantee, the best security for freedom, is a

bayonet in the hands of the workers." These were the words
of one of the creators of scientific Communism, Frederick
Engels. Now we can actually see how true this saying is: it
has been completely confirmed by the experience of the great
Revolution of 1917.
Quite a short time ago even some of our more radical com-
"
rades raised the cry of disarmament." This is what they
said : The bourgeoisie is everywhere building a monstrous,
colossal fleet submarine, marine and aerial; huge armies are
growing. Fortresses are being built, colossal cannon and such
organs of destruction as armoured cars and tanks. All this
terrible system of violence must be destroyed. We must demand
general disarmament.
But the Bolsheviks argued otherwise. We said: Our war
cry is disarmament of the bourgeoisie and unconditional and
universal arming of the working class. And indeed, it would
be ridiculous to attempt to persuade the bourgeoisie to surrender
its most powerful weapon its armed forces (composed by the

way, of deceived workmen and poor peasants). This violent

death-dealing machine can only be destroyed by means of
violence. Arms are surrendered only by the compulsion of the
superior armed force of the other side and in this fact' lies the
;

significance of the armed resistance against the bourgeoisie.

For the bourgeoisie the army is a weapon in the struggle
for the division of the world on the one hand, and a weapon in
the struggle against the working el ass on the other. The Tsar
and Kerensky dreamed of enn<|iierin^ Constantinople as well as
Hie Dardanelles, (lalir-ia. and many another spicy bit by the
 81

aid of their army. At the same time both the Tsui- and Kerensky
(and that means the landowners and the rapitalists) were
oppressing the working class and the poorest peasantry as much
as they could. In the hands of large property owners the army
served as a weapon for the division of the world and for the
subjection of the poor elements of the population. Thai- is what
the army used to be in former times.
How was it
possible for the bourgeoisie to make of the
workers and peasants (of whom the army is largely composed)
ii
weapon against these very workers and peasants'.' \Yhat
enabled the Tsar and Kerensky to do so? Why is it still being
done by Wilhelm and Hindenburg and by the German bour-
geoisie, who are turning their workers into executioners of the
Kussian, Finnish, Ukrainian and German revolutionaries? Why
were German sailors who revolted against their oppressors shot
down by the hand of other German sailors? How is it that the
English bourgeoisie is suppressing by means of English soldi* -rs
(who are also mostly workers) the rebellion in Ireland, a
country oppressed and trodden underfoot by cruel English
bankers ?
To this question the same answer should be given as to that
of how the bourgeoisie manages to retain its power in general.
We have seen that this achieved by means of the perfect
is

organisation of the bourgeoisie. In the army the, power of the

bourgeoisie rests on two principles firstly on the officer corps,
;

consisting of nobles and bourgeois; and secondly on the special

training and spiritual murcler, i.e., on a bourgeois moulding of
the minds of the soldiers. The officer corps on the whole is a
purely class institution. An officer is ideally trained for the
work of militarism, to inflict brutal corporal punishment on the
soldiers and to cruelly mishandle them. Just glance at one of
these brave officers of the Guards or at a Prussian dandy with
the face of a pri/.e bull-dog. You can see at a glance that like
a circus trainer he has been long and persistently learning how
to ill-treat and bully and keep the human herd in a state of
mortal fear and blind obedience.
You can see that, since such gentlemen are picked and
chosen from among the bourgeoisie and nobility and sons of
landowners and capitalists, it is quite evident that they will
lead the army in quite a definite direction.
And now, look at the soldiers they enter the army as
:

common nien, with no common bond, from different provinces,

 82

unable to show any united resistance, with minds already

tainted by the clergy and the school. They are instantly put
Up at barracks, and the training began. Intimidation and teach-
ing of the most anti-democratic nations, a constant system of
fear and punishment, corruption by rewards for crime (for in-
stance, for the execution of strikers), all this makes idiots of the
men, dummies who blindly obey their own mortal enemies.
It isevident that with the Revolution, the army entirely
resting on the old Tzarist basis, the army driven to slaughter
for the purpose of conquering Constantinople even by Kerensky,
must inevitably have become disorganised. Do you ask why?
Because the soldiers saw that they were being organised, trained
and thrown into battle for the sake of the criminal cupidity of
the bourgeoisie. They saw that for nearly three years they sat
in the trenches, perished, hungered, suffered, and died and
killed others all for the sake of somebody's money-bags. It is
natural enough that when the revolution had displaced the old
discipline and a new one had not yet had time to be formed, the
collapse, ruin and death of the old army took place.
This disease was inevitable. The Menshevik and Socialist
"
revolutionary fools accuse the Bolsheviks of this disaster :see
what you have done !
Corrupted the army of the Tzar." The
fail to see that the Revolution could not have been victorio
if the army had remained loyal to the Tzar and to the generals

in February and to the bourgeoisie in October. The soldiers'

rising against the Tzar was already the result of the disorganisa-
tion of the Tzarist army. Every revolution destroys what is
old and rotten : a certain period (a very difficult one to live
through) must pass until the new life is formed, until the build-
ing of a new beautiful edifice is begun upon the ruins of the old
pig-sty.
Let us give you another example from a different sphere.
As the older workers know, in bygone times, when the peasants
were only beginning to turn to factory work, the first thing that
happened when they came to town was to become desperate
"hooligans," "rowdies," "roughs." The word '"factory
hand" or "worker" were practically words of abuse; and
indeed our workers were great hands at ruffianism, obscenity
and swearing. Basing their arguments on this state of affairs,
all reactionaries fearing any kind of innovation used to propa-

gate a return to serfdom.

"What they said was this : As town life depraves workers
 83
"
and as its roughen their characters," what they
tendency is to
want isthe country, and especially the paternal rod of the land-
owners, I'nder these conditions virtue, will be sure to thriv*-.
And they sneered ill-nat mvdly at those who looked upon the
working class as the salt of the earth. They used to say to us
Marxists, disciples of the great Conmmnist, Karl Marx: "Do
\oii see what your workers are? They are swine, not men.
They are blackguards And yon say that they are the salt of
!

the earth A good whip and a stick -that is what they want
! ;

that will teach them to behave themselves."

" "
Many were convinced by such arguments. But the
truth of the matter is this when the peasants w-nt to town and
:

hroke witli the country, the old village ties and traditions were
forgotten. In {he country they lived according to old traditions,
looking up to the old men as if they were oracles, obeying them
although they had grown childish with age: they would stay
peacefully within the limits of their cabbage patch, never set-
ting foot outside their native town, and would, of course, be
afraid of am thing new. This is an example of rustic wisdom.
Had as it was, it served as a bridle, and helped to preserve
village order. This simplicity vanished rapidly in the towns,
where everything was new new people, new outlooks, and a
:

multitude of new temptations in store. <No wonder that the old

village morality vanished into thin air, and some time elapsed
before a new was formed. It was this interval between two
periods that came to be a period of depravity.
But during the course of events a new consciousness arose
in the new sphere of life the consciousness of the solidarity of
;

the proletariat. The factory united the workers; the oppression

of tlie capitalist taught them to struggle jointly: in the place
of the weak, insipid grandfatherly wisdom there arose a new
proletarian, outlook, infinitely higher than the old. It is this
new outlook that is changing the proletariat into the most
advanced, most revolutionary, most creative of all classes. We
Communists, of course, and not the feudalist landowners,
proved to be right.
Ai the present time the Mensheviks and Socialist Revo-
lutionaries have taken up the attitude of the feudalists with
regard to the army. They are loudly bewailing the disorganisa-
tion of the army, whilst laying the blame on the Bolsheviks.
And just as the f-'udalists used to call the workers back into the
country under the protective wing of the landowner and his
 84

whip, just so do the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries

now appeal for a return to the old army discipline, to serve under
a Constituent Assembly on a basis of a. return to capitalism and
"
all its attractions." But we Communists look ahead. We
know that the past is dead, having become rotten as was in-
evitable, and that, failing thus, the workers and poor peasants
could never take the Government into their hands : we know
that in the place of the old army a new, more enlightened one,
the Red Army of Socialism, has arisen.
As long as the bourgeoisie stand at the head of Government,
and our country is a fatherland of bankers, traders, speculators,
police, kings and presidents, so long will the working class have
no personal interests in guarding this filthy profit-producing
apparatus. A proletarian's duty is to rise against this institu-
tion. Only miserable lackies and hangers-on to money-bags can
say that we must not strike and revolt against the plundering
Imperialist Government at a time of war. Of course, such
revolts stand in the way of the plundering war business. It is
quite clear that agitation within the country, and more especi-
ally agitation in the army, aids disorganisation. But how is the
domination of Wilhelm, for instance, to be broken without dis-
organising the Wilhelm discipline? Impossible. The German
martyr sailors murdered by Wilhelm 's executioners, certainly
aided the disorganisation of the army organised after the high-
way robbery system. But if the robbers' army is inwardly
strong, that would mean death to the revolution. If the revo-
lution is strong, that means death to the robbers' army. The
} followers of Schiedemann, the German social betrayers, are per-
secuting Liebkneeht as a disorganiser of the army. They are
persecuting all the German"
revolutionists, the German Bolshe-
viks, as people who are dealing the valorous army a dastardly
blow in the back," in other words, a blow to the cause of
plunder. Let the Schiedemanns fraternise with our Mensheviks
and such like individuals they are all of a kidney.
Russia has passed through this period. The revolution of
the workers is victorious. The period of decay has passed into
the realm of memory. The period of construction of a new
order of things is upon us. A Red Army is being built now not
for plunder, but for the defence of Socialism not to guard the
:

fatherland of profit, where everything was in the hands of capital

and the landowners, but to protect the Socialist fatherland,
whore everything has been transferred to the hands of workers;
 85

not for tlu- sake of mutilating and ravaging foreign countries,

but for tlu- purpose- of aiding the international Communist
Revolution.
It is necdl"^ to say that this army must be built on dif-

Tin- lied Army, we have said,

ferent principles to the old one.
must represent an armed people alongside a disarmed bour-
geoisie. It must be a class army of the proletariat and the

poorest peasantry. It is essentially directed against the bour-

geoisie of the whole world, including its own. This is the reason
why it cannot include armed representatives of the bourgeoisie.
To admit the bourgeoisie, into the army would be equal to arming
it it would mean creating a White (luard within the
: lied Army
which might easily disorganise the whole concern, becoming a
centre of treason and revolt, and go over into the camp of the
imperialist troops of the enemy. Our object is not to arm the
bourgeoisie, but to disarm it, depriving it of its last browning.
Our second, and not less important task, is to prepare a
proletarian officer corps. The working class has to defend itself
against enemies who are attacking it from all sides. War has
been imposed upon it by the imperialist rascals: and modern
warfare requires well-trained specialists. The Tzar and
Kerensky had such men at their disposal, but the working class
and the peasantry have not. Specialists have to be trained.
For this purpose we must utilise the knowledge of the old ones;
tboy must be compelled to instruct the proletariat. Then the
Socialist Soviet Fatherland will have its own officers and its
own officer corps. And just as in the devolution, the more
experienced and active working class leads after it the poor
peasantry, so in the war against the imperialist robbers, the
worker-officers will lead the whole mass of the Eed Peasant
Army.
The lied Army must be created on the basis of universal
training of the workers and the poorest elements of the

peasantry.
This is most urgent and important. Not a minute, not a
second should be lost.
Every workman and every peasant must be trained and
must be taught how to use arms. Only fools can argue that:
'

They are a long way off yet; until they -,>me we shall have
time t.i
ready." Russian sluggards often reason like that.
get,
All the world knows that the favourite Russian saying is
" " " "
(_"
avos ") perhaps or maybe ";
1
avos we shall manage."
 86

But before you have time to wink, the class foe called land-
owners and capitalists, arrives on the spot a-nd takes the work-
man by the collar; and, maybe, when some brave Prussian
subaltern (or an English one, who knows?) places our workman
against the wall to
"
be shot, the good-natured fellow will scratch
his head sa\ing, What a fool 1 have been!"
We must look sharp. Don't letPeter wait for Bill, or Bill
for Peter. Let no one be idle, but all set earnestly to work.
Universal military training is the most urgent and most im-
portant problem of the day.
The old army was based on the retreat of the soldiers.
This happened because of capitalists and landowners com-
manding over millions of soldier-peasants and workmen, whose
interests were contrary to their own. The capitalist (iovern-
'ment was thus obliged to turn the soldier into a brainless tool,
acting against his own interests. But the Red Army of the
workers and peasants, on the contrary, is defending its own
cause. It must therefore be based only on the enlightenment
and conscientiousness of all comrades who enter its ranks.
Hence the need for special courses, reading-rooms, lectures,
meetings and conferences. In their leisure hours the soldiers
of the Red Army must take an active part together with the
workmen in the political life of the country, attending meetings
and sharing the life of the working class.
Tnls is one of the most important conditions for creating
a firm revolutionary discipline not the former discipline of the
:

rod, but the new discipline of the class-conscious revolutionary.

If the bond between the army and the working class is broken,
then the army rapidly 7Ie~generates and can easily turn into a
band willing to serve the master who pays most. Then it
begins to fall asunder, and nothing can save it. And, mi tlv
contrary, if- the soldiers of the hYd Army keeps close contact
with and takes an interest in the lives, then they will be exactly
what they are meant to be the armed organ of the revolu-
tionary masses.
One of the best ways of keeping in contact with th-
besides the above-mentioned lectures, political meetings, is the
utilisation of the soldiers for continuously training the workers
in shooting, handling rifles, machine guns, etc. Instead of
"
idling, card playing, and other recreations," instead of sense-
lessly sauntering about the barracks, they can turn to creative
work, which is in uniting the proletariat into one friendly
 87

family. In tins way an armed people is created, as well a

armed peasantry, t<> keep \\aidi over tin great revolution

1
<>f the
worl-

CHAPTER XIX.

THE LIBERATION OF NATIONS.

(Tun NATIONAL QTKSTIOX AND INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMACY.)
Theprogramme of the Communist Party is a scheme not
only I'm- tin- liberation of the proletariat of one country, but for
thr emancipation of the proletariat of the whole world: for it
is a programme of international revolution. But it is, at the
saint- time, a programme of the liberation of all oppressed
" "
countries and nations. The plundering great Empires
(Kn^land. (Jcrmany, Japan, America, etc.) have, hy dint of
robbery, acquired ascendancy over untold expanses of land and
vast numbers of people. They have divided our whole planet
between them and no wonder that in these conquered countries
;

the working class and the labouring masses are groaning under
a double yoki that of their own bourgeoisie and the additional
one cast upon them by their conquerors.
T/.arist Russia had also gained by plunder ft great deal of
" "
territory and many peoples. The present size of our
Empire is only to be" explained in this way. It is quite natural
that among many aliens," including even some sections of
" "
the proletariat who did not -belong to the great Russian
nationality, there was a general lack of confidence towards the
"Moscal," as the natives of Muscovy were formerly called.
The nationalist persecution evoked nationalist sentiments the ;

oppressed part of the proletariat had no confidence in the

oppressing nationality as a whole, without distinction of class;
the oppressing parts of the proletariat did not sufficiently under-
" "
stand the position of the alien proletariat subjected to by
a double burden of persecution. And yet, in order to attain the
victory of the workers' revolution along the whole front, com-
plete and perfect confidence of the various parts of the proletariat
towards each other is imperative. The proletariat of " alien "
nations should be made to feel by deed and \vord that it has a
I'.'Yal
ally in the person of the proletariat of the nation that
formerly was the oppressor. Here in Russia the dominating
 88
"
nation used to be the Great Russian," which conquered in
succession the Finns and the Tartars, the Ukrainians and the
Armenians, the Georgians and the Poles, the Sivashes and
Moravians, the Kirghizes and Bashkirs, and dozens of other
tribes. It naturally follows that some proletarians of these
.

peoples foster mistaken notions concerning everything Russian.

He has been accustomed to being ordered about and abused by
the Tzar's officials, and he thinks that all Russians and the
Russian proletariat as well are like what the former was.
It is for the purpose of instilling a brotherly confidence in
the various sections of the proletariat that the programme of
the Communists proclaims the right of the labouring class of
every nation to complete independence. That means to say
that the Russian worker who is now at the head of the Govern-
ment must say to the workers of other nationalities living in
"
Russia: Comrades, if you do not wish to form a part of the
Soviet Republic if you wish to organise your own Soviets and
:

form an independent Soviet Republic, you can do so. We fully

acknowledge your right to do so, and we do not wish to detain
you by force even for a single moment."
It is self-evident that only by such tactics can the confidence
of the proletariat as a whole be won. Let us imagine what
would happen if the workers' Soviets of Great Russia were to
attempt by force of arms to coerce the working class of oth
nations into submission. The latter would, of course, defen>
themselves with arms. That w ould mean the complete collapse
r

of the whole of all proletarian movements and the fall of the

Revolution. That is not the right way to act, for, we repeat,
victory is possible only on condition of a fraternal union of the
workers.
Let us bear this in mind. The question is not of the
right of the nation (i.e., of the workers and the bourgeoisie
together) to independence, but of the right
"
of the labouring
"
classes. That means that the so-called will of the nation
is not in the least sacred to us. We consider sacred
only the will of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat
masses.
That is why we speak not of the rights of nations to inde-
pendence, but of the right of the labouring classes of every
nation to separation if it so desires. During a proletarian
dictatorship it is not the Constituent Assemblies (all national,
 89

embracing all the p. '(.pic of tin- given tcrritorx ),but tin- Soviets
of workers that decide questions. And if in any out-of-the-way
cornel- there would he simultaneously convened two conferences,
" "
the Constituent Assembly of the given nation and the Con-
"
vention of Soviets; and if it so happens that the Constituent
"
Assembly expressed itself ill favour of separation, and the
Proletariat Convention voted against it, even then we should
'*
support the decision" of the proletariat against that of the Con-
stituent Assembly by every means, including force of arms.
This is how the Proletarian Party decides questions relat-
ing to the proletarians of the various nations living within the
boundaries of the country. But our party is confronted with a
still more difficult question, that of its international programme.
Hi-re our way is clear. We must pursue the tactics of universal
support of the International Revolution by means of revolu-
tionary propaganda, strikes, and revolts in Imperialist coun-
tries, and by propagating revolts and insurrections in the
colonies of these countries.
In Imperialist countries (and such are all countries except
Russia, where the workers have blown out the brains of capital)
'one of the main obstacles to a revolution is the social-patriotic
party. Even at the present moment it is "proclaiming the
defence of the (plundering) fatherland, thereby deceiving the
1

masses of the people. They are deploring the decay of the

(plundering) army. They are persecuting our friends the
German, Austrian and English Bolsheviks, who alone persist in
refusing with contempt and indignation to defend the bourgeois
fatherland. The position of the Soviet Republic is an exclusive
one. It is the only proletarian State organisation in the world,
in the midst of organised plundering bourgeois States. For that
reason alone this Soviet State has a right to be defended; and
more than .that, it must be looked on as a weapon of the
universal proletariat against the universal bourgeoisie. The war
cry of this struggle is self-evident the universal war cry of this
:

struggle is the motto of the International Soviet Republic.

The overthrow of Imperialist Governments by means of
armed insurrections and the organisation of the international
Soviet Republic, such is the way to an international dictator-
ship of the working class.
The most efficient means of supporting the international
|

revolution the organisation of armed forces of the revolution.

is
'

The workers of all countries who are not blinded by social

 90

patriots, the local Socialist ^Revolutionaries and Mensheviks (<>i

whom there are many in every country) recognise in the Russian
Workers' Revolution and in the Soviet Government facts that
concern them intimately. "Why? Because they understand
that the government of the Soviets means the government of
the workers themselves. It would be quite different if the bour-
geoisie, aided by the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries,
had overthrown the Soviet Government, convened the Con-
stituent Assembly, and by its means had organised the govern-
ment of the bourgeoisie, approximately on the same plan as that
which existed before the October coup d'etat. In that case the
\vorking class would have lost its country, its fatherland, for it
would have lost its power. Then the banks would inevitably have
been returned to the bankers, the factories to the manufacturers,
and the land to the landowners. The fatherland of profits would
have revived, and the workers would not have been interested in
the least in defending such a fatherland. On the other hand the
West European workers would also have ceased to regard
bourgeoisie Russia as the bright beacon showing them their way
in the difficult struggle. The development of international revo-
lution -would have been retarded. On the contrary, the organisa-
tion of the arrned forces of the workers and peasants, the
organisation of resistance against international robbers who are
fighting against Soviet Russia as its class enemies, -as owners
and capitalists, in a word, as a band of executioners of th<
Workers' Revolution, the organisation of the Red Army thes
are the factors combining to strengthen the revolutionary move-
ment in all Europeancountries.
The better we
are organised, the better we arm the bat-
talions of workers and peasants, the stronger will be the pro-
letarian dictatorship in Russia, and the quicker will the cause
of international revolution advance.
The Revolution is inevitable, however its pro^re-
hindered by German, Austrian, French and English Menslie-
viks. The Russian working masses have broken with the com-
promisers. The workers of Western Europe will also break
with them. (They are, as a matter of fact doing so already.)
t

The maxim overthrowing the bourgeois fatherlands, of shat-

of
tering the plundering Governments, and of establishing workers'
dictatorships, is steadily gaining ground. Sooner or later we
shall have an International Republic of Soviets.
The International Republic of Soviets will free hundreds
 1)1

" "
of millions ofpeoples of their \oke. The civilised plundering
of their colonies
Empires have cruelly tortured the inhabitants
hv their blood and iron regime. European civilisation was main-
tained by the blood of small peoples mercilessly exploited and
robbed in the far-off countries beyond the seas. They will be
!
by the dictatorship of thti proletariat, and by that alone.
Just as the JIussian
:
JSo"v'i( t Government has announced its re-

fusal participate in a colonial policy, and has proved its

to
decision by its attitude with regard to Persia, just so will the
European working class, after overthrowing the domination of
bankers, etc., give complete freedom to the oppressed and ex-
whicl
ploited classes. That is the reason why our programme,
is that of the international revolution, is at the same time a
scheme for the complete liberation of all the weak and oppressed.
The great class the working class has set before itself great
1

problems: and it has not only set them, but is proceeding to

solve them in a bloody, painful, heroic struggle.

CONCLUSION.
(WHY WE ARE COMMUNISTS.)

Up to the time of the

last Convention, our .party called
itselfthe party of the social democracy. The party of the work-
ing class bore the same name all over the world. But the war
lias been responsible for an unprecedented schism in the social-
democratic parties here. Three main tendencies have come to
the fore the extreme right, the centre, and the extreme left
wing.
The right social-democrats have proved to be thorough-
going traitors to the working class. They prostrated themselves
in the dust, and are still doing so, before the
generals whose
hands were covered with the blood of workers. They support
the vilest projects and greatest crimes of their Governments.
\\ e have
only to remember that the German Social-Democrat
Schiedemann is supporting the Ukrainian policy of the German
generals. They are the real executioners of the workers' revo-
lution.
\\ hen the German workers have won their cause
they will
hang Schiedemann on the same gallows as Wilhelm. There are
a great number of these kind of
persons in France and England,
 92

as well as in other countries. It is they who deceive the workers

by empty words about the defence of the fatherland (the bour-
geois, Wilhelm fatherland), and crush the workers' revolution
at home and execute it in Russia with the aid of the bayonets
of their Governments.
The second current is the centre. This has a tendency to
grumble against its Government, but is not capable of carrying
on a revolutionary struggle. It has not the courage to call the
workers into an open fight, and fears beyond everything an
armed insurrection, which is the only way of solving the
question.
And lastly, there is the third current, the extreme left.
In Germany Liebknecht and his comrades. They are German
Bolsheviks, their policy and views being those of the Bolsheviks.
You will understand what a muddle ensues as a result of
all these groups calling themselves by one and the same name.
The Social Democrat Liebknecht and the Social Democrat
Schiedemann What have they in common ? The one, a mean
!

traitor, an executioner of the revolution and the other, a brave

;

fighter for the working class. Can you imagine a greater

difference ?
In Eussia, where the revolutionary struggle and the
development of the re volution -in October caused the question
of Socialism and the overthrow of the bourgeois Government
to be settled immediately the dispute between the traitors to
:

Socialism and the adherents of true Socialism was decided by

force of arms. The Right Socialist Revolutionaries and party
of the Mensheviks were on the same side of the barricades as
the counter-revolutionary rabble the Bolsheviks were on the
:

other side, side by side with the workers and soldiers. Blood
marked a boundary line between us. Such a thing cannot and
iit-ver will be forgotten.
This why we were compelled to give a different nau
is

distinguish us from the traitors to Socialism. The difference

between us is too great. Our ways and means are too far apart.
As regards the bourgeois Government, we Communists
knowr but one duty towards it to blow it up, shattering at one
blow this union of plunderers. The Social Democrats propagate
the defence of the union of business men, screening themselves
by a pretence of defending their fatherland.
But after the victory of the working class, we stand for the
defence and protection of the workers' Soviet Government
 93

its sworn enemies, the Imperialists ol tin* whole world.

against
]Tut they, like true traitors to the workers' interests, make it
their task to break up the Workers' (iovernment and demolish
the Soviets. And in their struggle in this direction they go hand
in hand with the united bourgeoisie.
We Communists are eagerly striving onward in spite of all
difficulties we are going towards Communism through the
:

dictatorship of the proletariat. But they, like the evil bour-

hate this dictatorship with all their hearts, libelling and
geoisie,
it whenever they can, proclaiming as their watchword :
lowering
"
Back to Capitalism!"
We
' '

Communists say to the working class There are

:

many thorns upon our path, but we must go onward, undaunted.

The great revolution which is turning the old world upside down

cannot go smoothly the great revolution cannot be carried out

;

in white gloves it is born in pain.

;
These birth pangs must be
gone through with infinite patience when duly born they will
;

serve to free us from the iron grip of capitalist slavery."

And the Mensheviks, Socialist Eevolutionaries and Social
Democrats stand aside, looking on at our mistakes and failings,
'

and draw the conclusion of going back. Let us return," they

"
say. Give up everything to the bourgeoisie and content our-
selves with a modest helping at capitalist tables."
No! Our road is not the same. These wretches try to scare
us by the bogey of civil war. But there can be no revolution
without a civil war. Or do they perhaps imagine that in other
more advanced countries Socialist revolutions will take place
without civil war? The example of Finland has proved the
contrary. Thousands of murdered Finnish comrades afford the
best evidence of civil war in advanced capitalist countries being
ever more fierce, more bloody, more cruel and frenzied than
ours proved to be. Now we can foresee that in Germany, for
instance, the war between the classes will be extremely acute.
The German officers are already shooting their soldiers and
sailorsby hundreds for the slightest attempt of rebellion. It is
only through civil war and the iron dictatorship of the workers
that Socialism can be attained. Such is the
programme of the
Communists.
The demolition of the bourgeois Government, organisation
of production
by the working class, a wide road to Communism
such is the programme of the Communist Party.
When we call ourselves Communists we not only draw a
 04

line to distinguish ourselves from the social traitors, such as

Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and followers of Scheide-
mann, and other bourgeois agents. We revert to the old name
of the revolutionary party,- at the head of which stood Karl
Marx. His was the Communist Party. The testament of
modern revolution up to the present moment is still the Mani-' '

"
festo of the Communists written by Marx and Engels. Some
eighteen months
"
before his death old Engels protested against
"
the name of Social Democrat." He said, This name is not
a suitable one for a party which is striving towards Communism
and which finally aims at destroying every form of government,
including a democratic one." What would these great old men,
glowing with hatred towards the bourgeois State apparatus, say
if they were shown such Social Democrats as Dan, Tzeretelli,

Scheidemann? They would have branded them with contempt,

" "
as they did those democrats who, in tragic and difficult
moments of the revolution, directed the muzzles of their revol-
vers against the working class.
There are many obstacles in our way; and there is at
present much that is evil in our midst. For many outsiders
have joined us who are selling themselves for money to the
highest bidder, intending to fish in troubled waters. And the
working class is young and inexperienced. And the fiercest
enemies are surrounding the young Soviet Republic on all sides.
But we Communists know that the working class is learning
wisdom by its own mistakes. We
know that it will clear its
ranks of all the impurity that has crept in we know that it will
;

be joined by its loyal and desired ally the world proletariat.

No old womanish wails, no hysterical shrieks will confuse our
party, for it has put upon its banner the golden words written
by Marx in the Communist Manifesto: "LET THE
GOV-
ERNING CLASSES TREMBLE BEFORE THE COM-
MUNIST REVOLUTION. THE PROLETARIAT HAS
NOTHING TO LOSE BUT ITS CHAINS; IT HAS A
WORLD TO WIN. PROLETARIANS OF ALL COUN-
TRIES, UNITE!

Mav, 1918.
 PLEA* DO >T REMOVE
CARDt WK SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY

HX Nikolai Ivanovich
Bukharijti,
56 Programme of the world
B&5 revolution